- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 10:46:47 +0100
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
I wrote: >+ Does the WG agree that the new specs should descibe a specific Unicode >string to be delivered by rdf:parseType="Literal"? Graham wrote: > I must confess I'm not very clear what this means. I should clarify (or at least try to :) ). The old spec M&S seems to be deliberately vague about precisely which triple is generated by say: <rdf:Description> <rdf:value rdf:parseType="Literal"><foo/></rdf:value> </rdf:Description> My reading is that it permits _:anon <rdf:value> "<foo/>" . and :anon <rdf:value> "<foo></foo>" . and _:anon <rdf:value> "<foo />" . and _:anon <rdf:value> "<foo />" . etc. In general, for each feature identify as not in the infoset in XML Infoset, I think it is plausible to make examples where the old spec is deliberately ambiguous as to what the triple should be. Another example, (less silly) <rdf:Description> <rdf:value rdf:parseType="Literal"><foo a="a" b="b"/></rdf:value> </rdf:Description> My reading is that it permits _:anon <rdf:value> "<foo a='a' b='b'/>" . and _:anon <rdf:value> "<foo b='b' a='a'/>" . Either we decide to continue this deliberate ambiguity, or we decide to resolve it. This is the question I was raising. The old spec is also quiet about XML comments, XML processing instructions, XML namespaces, and references. Maybe that was wise, maybe it was foolish. Jeremy
Received on Friday, 14 September 2001 05:42:21 UTC