- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 12:12:51 -0000
- To: "Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>, "Dave Beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: "RDF Core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Dave:
> > * Provides only one way to encoded the literal-structures
> > and so in that sense is canonical.
Graham:
> Also good - simple-minded applications may still do string
> comparison, right?
Hmmm, ....
we still have to decide that, ....
Dave:
> xml("<b>foo</b>") XML content, no language
what about xml("<b >foo</b>") is this:
a) not legal ntriple
b) legal but different from xml("<b>foo</b>") (and not representable in
RDF/XML?)
c) legal and the same as xml("<b>foo</b>")
Personally I prefer (c), but I think it is better for the group to not make
this decision until after we have completed the xml literal issues.
For our test cases I think we can choose appropriate canonical strings, so
this needn't slow us down at all.
Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 12 March 2002 00:03:11 UTC