Manu Sporny wrote:
I thought I knew what was wrong with the tests in the test suite, but
your and Ivan's discussion has made me second guess my understanding (or
lack thereof) of XML c14n. Could you please point out exactly what is
wrong with the example in:
http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/rdfa.html#invalid-xmlliteral-values
Both of you seem to be asserting that c14n should be applied differently
than I understand it to the example in the HTML+RDFa draft.
I believe the example output should be:
<>
<http://example.org/vocab#markup>
"<rect xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\"; height=\"100\"
style=\"fill:rgb(0,0,255);stroke-width:1; stroke:rgb(0,0,0)\"
width=\"300\"></rect><rect xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\";
height=\"50\" style=\"fill:rgb(255,0,0);stroke-width:2;
stroke:rgb(0,0,0)\"
width=\"50\"></rect>"^^http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral
(with appropriate line-wrapping, and with the note after the example
updated appropriately).
Since the triple is serialised as N3/Turtle, and there is no automatic
c14n that occurs when parsing N3/Turtle, and RDF says XMLLiterals must
be strings that are exclusive canonical XML, the string in the example
must be exclusive canonical XML. That's basically canonical XML with all
the redundant namespace declarations removed, and canonical XML requires
explicit end tags and lexicographically-ordered attributes (with
namespace declarations first), hence the changes in the example output.
(I hope I didn't make any mistakes here - I checked with some
command-line tools and they seem to give the same output, so I think
it's probably approximately right!)
--
Philip Taylor
pj...@cam.ac.uk
