- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:09:14 +0100
- To: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: "Patrick.Stickler" <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:13:01 +0100 Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org> wrote: > 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 This is correct. > > > >Eh? Really? > > > >Don't you mean > > > > "Why the <FONT> Tag is Bad"^^rdf:XMLLiteral This is wrong. <snip/> I've quoted this before: [[ Text Nodes- the string value, except all ampersands are replaced by &, all open angle brackets (<) are replaced by <, all closing angle brackets (>) are replaced by >, and all #xD characters are replaced by 
. ]] -- http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xml-c14n-20010315#ProcessingModel > [...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", Yes, it should be, I will rename it. > 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.] Hmm. string-value is never called on an element or root event. The canonicalization algorithm from XC14N is separate. I should reword 6.1 > 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: Yes. > [[ > 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?] I might move some words around in parseTypeLiteralPropertyElt so that when "literal l" is discussed, the string value is clearly shown to be that after the canonicalization. > >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? Yes. That's the so-called double escaping and will give you an XML literal with the characters 'W', 'h', .... '&', 'l', 't', ';', 'F', 'O', ... which is what the first string above presents. This is because XML escapes such as & do not apply inside N-Triples strings (or RDF's rdf:XMLLiterals in the graph). > > > >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.) Indeed. In the same way as N-Triples are not required. Dave
Received on Monday, 28 July 2003 09:11:58 UTC