- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 18:56:26 +0100
- To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hp.com>
- Cc: "'Elliotte Rusty Harold'" <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>, "'www-tag@w3.org'" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Tuesday, February 3, 2004, 4:21:37 PM, Stuart wrote: WS> There seems to be some question as to whether xml:lang (and maybe xml:base) WS> survive the canonicalisation process. See [1] and thread. WS> Stuart WS> -- WS> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Jan/0013.html That is one of the differences between the Infoset and the XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 Functions and Operators spec; both define 'canonical' views of a type-augmented XML document, but Infoset says nothing about inherited attributes while F&O does describe it: http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-functions/#func-lang and even gives the Xpath to find the current in-scope xml:lang attribute: (ancestor-or-self::*/@xml:lang)[last()] >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Elliotte Rusty Harold [mailto:elharo@metalab.unc.edu] >> Sent: 3 February 2004 15:11 >> To: www-tag@w3.org >> Subject: Re: [xmlChunk-44] Chunk of XML - Canonicalization >> and equality >> >> >> At 11:22 PM -0500 2/2/04, Ian B. Jacobs wrote: >> >Hello, >> > >> >At their 2 Feb 2004 teleconference, the TAG accepted a new issue [1]: >> > >> >xmlChunk-44: Chunk of XML - Canonicalization and equality >> > >> >> Is this XML fragments under another name? That is, what do >> you mean by "chunk"? >> >> Also, how is this not solved by exclusive XML >> canonicalization? It seems to me two "chunks" are likely to >> be equal if they have the same exclusive XML canonicalization. >> >> I don't yet see what's new about this issue. >> -- >> >> Elliotte Rusty Harold >> elharo@metalab.unc.edu >> Effective XML (Addison-Wesley, 2003) >> http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/effectivexml >> >> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0321150406/ref%3Dnosi >> m/cafeaulaitA >> -- Chris mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Tuesday, 3 February 2004 12:56:57 UTC