W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > February 2003

Re: reagle-01, reagle-02 issues

From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 15:35:20 +0000 (GMT)
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0302241531140.27130-100000@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

> I see the choice space as:
> 1: Leave things as they are
> 2: Choose a form X of canonicalization,
>    require parser to implement X
>    define lexical to value mapping as X
> 3: Choose a form X of canonicalization
>    define lexical to value mapping as X
>    leave text in Syntax largely unchanged (except use X in place of current
> "exclusive canonicalization without comments"). This allows cheap and
> cheerful parsers that do not canonicalize.
> =====
> 3 is now my preference - I realise it needs expansion, but before I do that
> I wish to list pros and cons, and get feedback from WG.
> =====

As long as canonicalisation is expensive and/or difficult to get right,
too large for embedded work (? - really the case these days), and
there's a lack of decent libraries to perform this, I think the "cheap
and cheerful" approach makes a lot of sense.

> Consider three use cases:

> C) Embedding XSLT document inside and rdf:XMLLiteral (hence requiring
> support for preservation of not visibly used namespaces)

Is this a problem with XSLT? That is, does the dropping of unused
namespaces in a canonicalisation mean that xslt is lacking a "dummy"
construct to utilise otherwise unused namespaces?

If so, is there an XSLT feedback avenue?

jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 http://ioctl.org/jan/
There's no convincing English-language argument that this sentence is true.
Received on Monday, 24 February 2003 10:35:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:20 UTC