- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 17:36:07 +0300
- To: <gk@ninebynine.org>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Right. OK. Whew! ;-) Patrick > -----Original Message----- > From: ext Graham Klyne [mailto:gk@ninebynine.org] > Sent: 28 July, 2003 16:02 > To: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere); w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > Subject: RE: first pass parseType="Literal" text for primer > > > Sounds about right to me. Here's another case to consider: > > <title rdf:parseType='Literal'>Why the <FONT> Tag is Bad</title> > > which I understand to be valid XML, I think also yields: > > "Why the <FONT> Tag is Bad"^^rdf:XMLLiteral > > (underscoring that the &-stuff in the XML lexical form is put > there by the > RDF parser handling the C14N stuff.) > > #g > -- > > At 15:52 28/07/03 +0300, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote: > > >OK. > > > >If I'm understanding this correctly, the < and > > >are getting resolved to '<' and '>' by the RDF/XML > >parser, insofar as the XML processing of the RDF/XML > >instance is concerned, but the canonicalization is > >re-escaping them back to < and >? > > > >If the entities are not ever being resolved at any > >stage of the parsing process, then that worries me > >alot. It suggests that an RDF/XML parser is not > >playing by the rules of XML fully. > > > >Patrick > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: ext Graham Klyne [mailto:gk@ninebynine.org] > > > Sent: 28 July, 2003 15:13 > > > To: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere); w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > > > Cc: Dave Beckett > > > Subject: RE: first pass parseType="Literal" text for primer > > > > > > > > > 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-200 > >30117/#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 > > ------------------- > Graham Klyne > <GK@NineByNine.org> > PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9 A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E > >
Received on Monday, 28 July 2003 10:36:12 UTC