- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 09:24:21 -0500
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
On Tuesday 05 March 2002 04:49, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> Of course, the RDF group could say that namespace declarations on the
> propertyElt (the one with rdf:parseType="Literal") are put on the
> InclusiveNamespace PrefixList. That would then be a bit more natural and
> less of a change than modifying the "Literal" word as I suggested in:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Mar/0041.html
Or, you could just use Canonical XML. (Is the RDF usage scenario that you
will want to be serializing subsets of an XML document and that you expect
to move those subsets between documents? I'd expect that the RDF is in
some datastore, and then you emit those bits that you want to canonicalize
(i.e., your not using a particular XML document as the actual store during
processing). for transmission before their sucked into some other data
store.)
> This example would then become:
>
> <eg:bar rdf:parseType="Literal"
> xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema">
> <foo xsi:type="xsd:decimal">10.09</foo>
> </eg:bar>
>
> where the RDF parser treats the namespace decl as asserting that
> InclusiveNamespace PrefixList = { xsd }
> and then canonicalizes the xml literal on that basis.
Yep.
> Doesn't work well with putting the C14N into xml literal equality though.
I don't understand this. (Why?)
--
Joseph Reagle Jr. http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
W3C Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair http://www.w3.org/Signature/
W3C XML Encryption Chair http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/
Received on Wednesday, 6 March 2002 09:25:23 UTC