- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 11:19:37 +0300
- To: <gk@ninebynine.org>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
> -----Original Message----- > From: ext Graham Klyne [mailto:gk@ninebynine.org] > Sent: 10 September, 2003 10:23 > To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > Subject: Is there a test case for this? > > > > This arises from the I18N debate, but is a distinct issue > which I think is > important to be clear about. > > (Not knowing my way around the test cases...) > > What graph does this denote? > > <rdf:Description> > <eg:prop>foo < bar</eg:prop> > </rdf:Description> > > I think it should be: > > _:a eg:prop "foo < bar" . I agree. > but others (including the W3C RDF validator service) seem to > think differently. > > My rationale is: > > - RDF/XML syntax is based on infoset > - creation of infoset from textual XML input replaces > entities, so '<' > becomes '<' > - RDF/XML syntax specification (as I recall) does not specify > that '<' in > literals is mapped back to '<' > > Am I wrong? I don't think so (but then, I could be wrong too ;-) Patrick > #g > > > ------------ > Graham Klyne > GK@NineByNine.org > >
Received on Wednesday, 10 September 2003 04:19:59 UTC