- From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 18:12:02 -0500
- To: Benja Fallenstein <b.fallenstein@gmx.de>
- Cc: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org, msm@w3.org, w3c-rdf-core-wg@w3.org
>Hi Graham, > >Graham Klyne wrote: >>as far as I can tell, you're contradicting the XML canonicalization spec. >> >>Is canonical XML a sequence of octets or something else? >> >>The XML canonicalization spec, I understand, says it's a sequence of octets. > >I can see what you're saying. The XML c14n spec says that > > The term exclusive canonical XML refers to XML that is in > exclusive canonical form. > ><http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xml-exc-c14n-20020718/#def-exclusive-canonical-XML> > >which is refered to by > > The lexical-to-value mapping [of XMLLiterals] maps a string to the > corresponding exclusive Canonical XML (with comments, with empty > InclusiveNamespaces PrefixList ). > ><http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-concepts-20030117/#section-XMLLiteral> > >I think "XML in exclusive canonical form" can indeed only be taken >as octets; an abstract XML infoset certainly cannot be in canonical >form. > >I believe that it is a bad idea to treat XML literals like this, though. Surely that is a matter to take up with the folk who wrote the XML specification? It is not our task to re-write a normative specification document written by another working group. Pat Hayes -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Thursday, 31 July 2003 19:12:11 UTC