- From: dehora <dehora@eircom.net>
- Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 18:37:09 +0100
- To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Dan: "The test data that Art collected... Test cases for parseType="Literal" Art Barstow (Mon, Oct 08 2001) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0095.html shows that RDF implementations are pretty much all over the map on this literal stuff. That suggests, to me, that we should chuck it, like we did aboutEachPrefix... but only if nobody's using it." Jeremy: "I would not be opposed to deleting parseType="Literal"" I wouldn't either (deleting all xml attributes pertaining to literals would be a mercy killing at this point), but for my edification, can someone please tell me how we got from insisting that proposals on this attribute be backwards compatible to dropping it? If I'd known that dropping the thing was a backwards compatible option, I'd have suggested as much a month ago :) Aside: Some of parseType="Literal" examples I see are illegal as wf XML. Why? They don't have an enclosing/root element. That includes the dc example in the M&S and most of the tests Dan refers to above. For example in cases such as: test002: <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.example.org"> <eg:property xml:lang="en-US" rdf:parseType="Literal">well-formed XML</eg:property> </rdf:Description> where the resultant literal: well-formed XML is not well formed XML, then processors should complain. The RDF as a whole may be well formed XML, but The M&S is quite clear that such literals are element content and this element content is to be wf XML: From the M&S: [[[ In all cases, the content of an element having a parseType attribute must be well-formed XML. ]]] From XML1.0 2nd ed: [[[ 2.1 Well-Formed XML Documents [Definition: A textual object is a well-formed XML document if:] Taken as a whole, it matches the production labeled document. It meets all the well-formedness constraints given in this specification. Each of the parsed entities which is referenced directly or indirectly within the document is well-formed. Document [1] document ::= prolog element Misc* ]]] Expanding the <element> production (<prolog> and <Misc> have empty expansions) tells us that we the next thing we see is either an <EmptyElemTag> [44] or an <Stag> [40]. So not only are these processors all over the map, they don't know what well formed XML is. Of the literal test cases, only test004 is legal XML-RDF. regards, Bill
Received on Saturday, 13 October 2001 13:39:46 UTC