- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 15:49:30 +0200
- To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
> But could we not still state that the value space consists of > Infosets, and the L2V mapping is from canonical octet sequence > to nodeset to infoset, and visa versa? > > If it can be finessed, I think we are in a better position > having a value space of infosets. > > Patrick > Using the infoset you are supposed to say which bits of it are relevant: http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset/#conformance since rdf:XMLLiteral depends on exc-c14n which depends on xpath, we depend on the same information items (not the document). I suggest it is not our place to articulate those. In -- 2.2 Element Information Items 2.3 Attribute Information Items 2.4 Processing Instruction Information Items 2.6 Character Information Items 2.7 Comment Information Items 2.11 Namespace Information Items Out -- 2.1 The Document Information Item 2.5 Unexpanded Entity Reference Information Items 2.8 The Document Type Declaration Information Item 2.9 Unparsed Entity Information Items 2.10 Notation Information Items ???? i.e. we can follow the specs from our current design thru to Xpath. While there is presumably a link between xpath and infoset, that looks more difficult. So I cautiously favour remaining silent, and leaving XMLers to fill in the gaps if any. Jeremy
Received on Friday, 8 August 2003 09:50:18 UTC