- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 08:00:13 +0100
- To: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
This is a formal request from RDF Core to I18N WG to review the six RDF Last Call Working Drafts listed at: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/#documents We are particularly interested in your thoughts on our use of XML Canonicalization to assist with defining the meaning of embedding fragments of XML within RDF. This topic is discussed in the following documents: RDF Concepts http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/ #section-Datatypes #section-XMLLiteral #section-Graph-Literal RDF Syntax http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/ #section-Syntax-XML-literals #parseTypeLiteralPropertyElt #literal (see note below) RDF Semantics http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/ #rdfinterp #dtype_interp RDF Test Cases http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-testcases/ #ntriples is probably worth reading. Search for /xml-literal/ (2 tests) A specific point is to do with the use of exclusive canonicalization in RDF Syntax. We have chosen to leave it as implementation dependent whether or not XML comments are significant, and also which not-visibly-used namespaces are preserved (your InclusiveNamespaces PrefixList). For instance, my own implementation treats any namespace that is explicitly redeclared (or declared for the first time) on an XML element as significant, even though such redeclaration information is not available in the XPath Nodeset. This behaviour is conformant but not required. thanks for your help Jeremy Carroll
Received on Tuesday, 28 January 2003 01:59:28 UTC