- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 09:38:50 +0100
- To: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
> > Maybe we could just try to say it more gently. > > 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. > (OK ...) hmmm, what about ... [[[ 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 , it must form an XML document when enclosed within a start and end element tag, and then its canonicalization (without comments, as defined in ...) must be the same as the same canonicalization of the literal text l. In some applications, an acceptable implementation is to use l without change. This is incorrect if, for example, l uses entity references or namespace prefixes defined in the outer document. ]]]
Received on Friday, 29 November 2002 03:39:04 UTC