- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 13:11:44 +0100
- To: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
- CC: RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Jos de Bruijn wrote: >>> There are some further differences between the specification >>> of the string datatype in XML schema 1.0 and XML schema 1.1; in the >>> former case, the datatype is based on the Char production in XML 1.0; in >>> the latter case, the datatype is based on the Char production in XML 1.1. >>> An important question is what to do with plain literals which contain >>> characters which are not in the lexical space of xsd:string. >> So there is a real difference there. XML 1.0 does not allow characters >> like BEL (those below #x20 other than #x9 #xA and #xD) XML 1.1 does >> allow those characters. > > Are these characters (i.e. those below #x20 other than #x9 #xA and #xD) > actually Unicode characters? Yes, though they are control characters rather than displayable characters. Note that even though the XML1.1 spec allows them in the Char production it "discourages" them: [[[ Document authors are encouraged to avoid "compatibility characters", as defined in Unicode [Unicode]. The characters defined in the following ranges are also discouraged. They are either control characters or permanently undefined Unicode characters: [#x1-#x8], [#xB-#xC], [#xE-#x1F], ... ]]] >> Since the only normative exchange syntax for RIF and for RDF is XML then >> it is not actually possible to exchange characters sequences other than >> those expressible in the XML version one is dealing with. So we just >> have to be clear which version XML RIF is based on. > > It is always possible to define an embedding, but of course it would be > ideal if strings can be exchanged as such. > >> The most general solution is perhaps to say that the we regard the value >> space of xsd:string being that defined in XML 1.1. Exchange using XML >> 1.0 is entirely legal and permitted but the lexical space is then >> restricted slightly. > > I guess this is reasonable, because XML schema 1.1 has last call working > draft status. Quite so, we're not that close ourselves :-) Dave -- Hewlett-Packard Limited Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Monday, 3 September 2007 12:12:14 UTC