- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:59:31 -0400
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com, jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com, phayes@ai.uwf.edu, www-rdf-comments@w3.org, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org, msm@w3.org
At 21:33 03/07/25 -0400, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org> > > At 07:54 03/07/25 -0400, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > > >However other answers are harder to determine. > > > > > >1/ When is an XML literal equal to a plain RDF literal? A plain RDF > > >literal is a Unicode string (sequence of Unicode characters), so this > > >question boils down to whether octets and Unicode characters are disjoint. > > >I found it difficult to answer this question, because of hints in the > > >exclusive canonicalization document that they are not. > > > > Can you point to the places where you saw such hints. If there are > > such hints, then they definitely have to be fixed, and I'll make > > sure that this happens. > >The examples in Section 2 of >http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xml-exc-c14n-20020718/ give canonical XML >documents as if they were sequences of Unicode characters. This indicates >that octets are Unicode characters. There is an explicit counterexample at http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xml-c14n-20010315#Example-UTF8. Is this good enough, or not? If not, I'll ask the XML Signature people to add a clarification. I can understand that this may be a bit confusing. But in some way, it's the same as for integers: We can't directly visualize integers. So we use strings of digits (characters) to show them. The same with octets: We can't directly visualize sequences of octets. So we use sequences of characters to show them. Regards, Martin.
Received on Sunday, 27 July 2003 22:13:08 UTC