- From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:13:01 +0100
- To: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
At 14:31 28/07/03 +0300, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote: > > 2. <title rdf:parseType='Literal'>Why the <FONT> Tag is > > Bad</title> > > > > I take the value of this 'title' property to be: > > > > "Why the <FONT> Tag is Bad"^^rdf:XMLLiteral > >Eh? Really? > >Don't you mean > > "Why the <FONT> Tag is Bad"^^rdf:XMLLiteral > >Surely the entities are resolved the same as for any >literal. Not by my reading of Concepts: [[ The lexical space is the set of all strings which: * are well-balanced, self-contained XML data [XML]; * correspond to exclusive Canonical XML (with comments, with empty InclusiveNamespaces PrefixList ) [XML-XC14N]; * when embedded between an arbitrary XML start tag and an end tag form a document conforming to XML Namespaces [XML-NS] ]] -- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-concepts-20030117/#section-XMLLiteral which would require the '<' and '>' here to be &-escaped. When the XML literal is eventually interpreted, you'd get the bare '<' and '>' characters back. [...removes sleeping cat from copy of syntax spec...] Looking at the syntax spec, struggling a bit... [Dave: Should section "6.1.2 Element Event" be "Start Element Event", and should there be a description of what the "string-value" accessor returns? Maybe not, but I note section 6.1 says that all events have a string-value accessor.] Ah, got it: In the syntax spec, we have sections 7.2.17 and 7.2.33 which together claim the literal string value is the exclusive XML canonicalization of the content, which I think means that the escaping of '&', '<' and '>' has to be re-inserted: [[ The string used as the lexical form of the XML Literal is the Exclusive XML Canonicalization [XML-XC14N]) with comments and with empty InclusiveNamespaces PrefixList of the literal text l, i.e. the entire element content of this property element. ]] -- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20030117/#parseTypeLiteralPropertyElt [Dave: is it worth adding a note to clarify this point?] >If you wanted/needed > > "Why the <FONT> Tag is Bad"^^rdf:XMLLiteral > >then you'd have to say > > <title rdf:parseType='Literal'>Why the &lt;FONT&gt; Tag is > Bad</title> > >No? > >If this is not the case, then I've really missing something >major here and am very alarmed! I think that may be workable, but it's not how I read the documents we're working on. (Note that this formulation of the abstract syntax is for definitional purposes, and does not of itself require that an application do this. You may have some other way of storing an XML literal which is fine as long as you get the same final answers.) #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org> PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9 A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
Received on Monday, 28 July 2003 08:17:05 UTC