- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 13:46:30 -0000
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
> RDF C14N Comments (A)
> =================
> Discussion of XML comments in C14N, and xml-literals in RDF.
An easy binary choice is whether the C14N for xml-literals should preserve
comments or strip them.
e.g. given the following RDF/XML
<rdf:Description
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/metadata/dublin_core#"
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
rdf:about="http://example.org/papers/paper1">
<dc:Title rdf:parseType="Literal"><!-- Relevant text start. -->
Foo<em>bar</em>
<!-- Relevant text end. --></dc:Title>
</rdf:Description>
Is the generated graph:
<http://example.org/papers/paper1> <dc:title> "<!-- Relevant text
start. -->\n Foo<em xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">bar</em>\n <!--
Relevant text end. -->" .
or
<http://example.org/papers/paper1> <dc:title> "\n Foo<em
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">bar</em>\n " .
C14N allows both forms, and the RDF Core WG should decide which (or decide
that RDF applications decide which).
(Note I have used exclusive C14N with an empty InclusiveNamespaces Prefix
List).
Jeremy
Received on Monday, 4 March 2002 08:46:47 UTC