Steve, I you need CDATA, you'd still use XML literal since CDATA is valid XML.
Regards, ___________________________________________________________________________ Arthur Ryman, PhD, DE Chief Architect, Project and Portfolio Management IBM Software, Rational Markham, ON, Canada | Office: 905-413-3077, Cell: 416-939-5063 Twitter | Facebook | YouTube From: Steve K Speicher <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Date: 03/18/2010 11:15 AM Subject: Re: [oslc-core] Need for an XML literal value type Sent by: [email protected] Dave <[email protected]> wrote on 03/18/2010 09:24:23 AM: > I'm still a little concerned about adding XML literal as a value type > and I'm trying to understand the pros and cons. The only justification > that we have so far for adding an XML literal value is for storing > XHTML data, which we need for rich text, but we can easily store XHTML > data as a string. > > What specifically do we gain by putting XHTML content in-line in our > RDF/XML and Atom XML representations? > > And conversely, what do we lose by not doing so? > > Also, does putting XHTML content in-line in RDF/XML result in valid RDF/XML? > RDF/XML allows for XML Literals as stated in http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/#dfn-rdf-XMLLiteral so the RDF/XML is still valid, if rdf:parseType="Literal" So I would believe that we are using XML Literals as intended. I think there will also be cases where we'd want CDATA property value types, for example HTML content(non-XML based). Though I'm not exactly sure how that would be specified, other than using literal XML. Thanks, Steve Speicher | IBM Rational Software | (919) 254-0645 _______________________________________________ Oslc-Core mailing list [email protected] http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net
