- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: 29 Jul 2003 11:44:28 +0100
- To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>, Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>, rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, i18n <w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org>
On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 11:21, Dave Beckett wrote:
> On 29 Jul 2003 10:45:35 +0100
> Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>
> > <rdf:Description>
> > <eg:prop rdf:parseType="Literal"><em></eg:prop>
> > </rdf:Description>
>
> This isn't good XML, see below.
Oh bu**er! There goes what was left of my credibility!
[...]
>
> Note also that the canonical XML form of empty elements such as
> "<br/>" is "<br></br>"
I didn't know that. Learned something.
> (see Element Nodes in
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xml-c14n-20010315#ProcessingModel
> )
>
> (Also, unless there is a particular reason, maybe don't stick with
> HTML-evocative tags?)
That was deliberate, in that representing text is the I18N design
centre, but you are right, it shouldn't really matter.
>
> Is this form teaching you too many things at once: ?
Seems like it :)
>
> Concrete Syntax | Abstract Syntax | Denotation
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> <eg:prop>a</eg:prop> | "a" | "a"
> <eg:prop><ab></eg:prop> | "<ab>" | "<ab>"
> <eg:prop pt="L"><ab/></eg:prop> | "<ab></ab>^^rdf:XMLLiteral | C("<ab></ab>")
> <eg:prop pt="L">&</eg:prop> | "&"^^rdf:XMLLiteral | C("&")
>
> I'm not sure whether I'm capturing what you say here, your version of
> the table sort of implies the the canonical XML form isn't in the
> lexical form of the XML literal in the abstract syntax (as written in N-Triples).
Right, that was another mistake :(
Thanks for fixing my mistakes. Maybe I can take some consolation that
format works in that my mistakes were pretty obvious. Then again, maybe
not.
Brian
Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2003 06:46:13 UTC