W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > December 2002

Re: RDF XML Syntax doc proposed changes / issues

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 12:28:19 +0000
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <17712.1039177699@hoth.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

>>>Jeremy Carroll said:
> Sorry I have been sleeping ...
> Your text looks fine to me, with one word addition

Updating and inlining:

 This specification allows some freedom to choose exactly what string
 is used as the lexical form of an XML Literal.  Whatever string is
 used, it MUST correspond to an XML document when enclosed within a
 start and end element tag, and its canonicalization (without
 comments, as defined in [XC14N]) MUST be the same as the same
 canonicalization of the literal text l.  It is often acceptable to
 use l without any changes but this is incorrect if, for example, l
 uses entity references or namespace prefixes defined in the outer
 XML document.

I'm wondering about the phrase 
  "MUST be the same as the same canonicalization of the literal text l"

what does "the same canonicalization of the literal text l" mean?
Does that mean "the same XC14N of the literal text l" ?

> We use to have a normative ref to XC14N in concepts, this in turn
> normatively refers to C14N.
> So, moving the XC14N ref to syntax, and having a C14N ref in concepts is
> *not* adding to the normative refs burden, just clarifying its size.

Yeah, I realised that after I wrote it.

You say "we use"; do you mean "we used to"?  Are you removing this
normativeness from concepts?

> On the comments issue the mapping from the syntax to the lexical form was
> agreed as with or without comments at implementation descretion.
> Hence the minimal requirement is without comments, which is why your text is
> good.
> However, IMO, if the implementation chooses to keep the comments in the
> mapping to lexical form, then it should also keep them in the datatype
> lexical-to-value mapping.
> This last point I decided arbitrarily at editor's descretion. (invitation to
> challenge/discuss that judgement) I guess it would be consistent with the WG
> decisions to also allow that dattaype l2v mapping to be implementation
> dependent. I prefer to localize the implementation dependency in one spot,
> and the syntax doc seems the right place (sorry).

That seems appropriate and I'm happy with that.

Received on Friday, 6 December 2002 07:28:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:19 UTC