- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 15:39:09 +0000
- To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
At 13:54 05/12/2002 +0000, Dave Beckett wrote: > >>>Brian McBride said: > > At 15:05 04/12/2002 +0000, Dave Beckett wrote: > > >* Add some form of canonicalisation words? > > > > > > I prefer something lightweight like Brian suggested: > > > > > > [[This specification allows an implementation some freedom to > > > choose exactly what string it will use as the lexical form of an > > > XML Literal. Whatever string an implementation uses , its > > > canonicalization (without comments, as defined in ...) must be the > > > same as the same canonicalization of the literal text l. A minimal > > > implementation is to use l without change. > > > ]] > > > > > > This has been suggested to go in > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#parseTypeLiteralPropertyElt > > > to replace the last sentence. > > > > Fine by me. Did Jeremy suggest a variation on this wording? > >Not that I've seen; your suggestion above was the last thing in the >thread of comments. Did you look at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Nov/0649.html Brian
Received on Thursday, 5 December 2002 10:37:43 UTC