RE: Proposal to close reagle-01 reagle-02

<snip />
>
> I'm presuming that this is a requirement on the output of an RDF
> parser, from which the lexical form is actually interned in a given
> system (graph) and not a requirement on a human being who may be
> creating XML literal lexical forms in an RDF/XML serialization
> using a plain text editor.

Correct.

>
> I.e., in the RDF/XML, any well formed XML is acceptable, right?

Correct.

>
> If this is a requirement on the human, then this is not IMO acceptable.
> We cannot require "normal" folks to grok XML canonicalization and
> restrict themselves to only creating XML literals accordingly.

Correct.

>
> It would be good if the syntax spec were clear on this point. It was
> not clear to me, even after several readings.

That's a bug - should be fixed.

I will first try to say why the text is clear and unambiguous, but I am
obviously on weak ground, given that it was not clear for you:


> New text:
> [[
> The string used as the lexical form of the XML Literal
> is the Exclusive XML Canonicalization [XML-XC14N])
> with comments and with empty <a href="
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xml-exc-c14n-20020718/#def-Inclu
> siveNamespaces
> -PrefixList
> ">
> InclusiveNamespaces PrefixList
> </a>
> of the
> literal text l, i.e. the entire element content
> of this property element.
> ]]

The "Exclusive XML Canonicalization" is a process relating the literal text
l to the lexical form whereas "exclusive canonical XML" is a class of text.
You appear to find a misreading in which the lexical form = the literal text
l and both are requried to be exclusive canonical XML.

Dave do you want to make editorial changes to the agreed text, or would you
like me to propose some variations. A very simple one might be to s/E/e/
s/C/c/ and then link "exclusive XML canonicalization" to the right part of
XML-XC14N.

Jeremy

Received on Monday, 31 March 2003 04:59:52 UTC