W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > July to September 2003

Re: Test case regarding XML Literals and octets

From: Benja Fallenstein <b.fallenstein@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 18:03:24 +0200
Message-ID: <3F2A8F4C.9010701@gmx.de>
To: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
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 Pat,

ok, I hadn't understood that you had chosen xml-exc-c14n in order to get 
an XML representation minimally affected by the omitted XML context. 
Sorry about this nonunderstanding.

One more question (sorry if it is another uninformed one...): You 
already specify (in the editors' draft) that the lexical form of XML 
literals must conform to xml-exc-c14n (which I read to say, it must be 
exclusively canonicalized XML).

Since Exc Canonical XML is the serialization of a node-set, if you just 
parsed that canonical XML you would get a node-set which is exactly in 
the form you want: Minimally affected by the omitted XML context. 
Wouldn't it make sense to specify that the denotation of an XML literal 
is that node-set? Wouldn't that meet your goals (minimally affected by 
context) and still match the "intuitive" expectation that XML "denotes" 
an abstract tree?

I.e. I think your concerns are taken care of by picking xml-exc-c14n on 
the lexical space level, the decision on the value space level can in 
principle be made independently of that? Or am I missing something 
simple again?

pat hayes wrote:
> The XML exclusive 
> canonicalization document itself describes the purpose of exclusive 
> canonicalization in these terms, as being the reason for introducing it 
> in the first place.
> (section 1.2 Applications:
> "The applications of Exclusive XML Canonicalization are very similar to 
> those for Canonical XML [ XML-C14N ]. However, exclusive 
> canonicalization, or equivalent means of excluding most XML context, is 
> necessary for signature applications where the XML context of signed XML 
> will change ")
 > The fact that
> the document refers the definition of this form of canonicalization to 
> octets rather than nodesets (which does seem odd, now you point it out)

Well, it says that the applications for xml-exc-c14n are similar to 
those for xml-c14n-- i.e., getting a canonical *representation* of an 
XML document. That xml-exc-c14n isn't defined in terms of a nodeset can 
probably simply explained by the authors' being the XML Signature Group 
and mostly concerned with signatures.

- Benja
Received on Friday, 1 August 2003 12:05:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:03 UTC