Dan Connolly wrote:
[...] I consider the XMLLiteral problems limitations of the test harness; I suggest more subtle SPARQL queries. I don't recommend a strict canonical-xml requirement on RDFa parsers; I hope we can find some equivalence test from XQuery that will serve better.
The exclusive Canonical XML requirement is a feature of RDF, not RDFa. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#dfn-rdf-XMLLiteral says:
"The lexical space is the set of all strings [...] for which encoding as UTF-8 [RFC 2279] yields exclusive Canonical XML (with comments, with empty InclusiveNamespaces PrefixList) [XML-XC14N]"
so if an RDF producer (e.g. an RDFa parser) produces an RDF triple whose object is a typed literal with datatype rdf:XMLLiteral and with a lexical form that is *not* in exclusive canonical form, then it is not conforming RDF, and I would expect a test suite for an RDF-based technology to flag it as an error. Until/unless RDF changes the definition of rdf:XMLLiteral, I don't believe RDFa has any choice in this.
-- Philip Taylor pj...@cam.ac.uk
