It works for me (after all, it is the job of a future RDF group to look at all the details). I think that explicitly copying this to Jeremy, Martin Durst and to Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> might make sense, they might add some additional info that could be recorded in the thread. Thanks ivan Bijan Parsia wrote: > How's this to start: > > We believe that the hard coded references to XML 1.0 version 2 in: > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/ > and > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/ > > and to Unicode 3.0 in > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/ > and > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/ > > are unduly restrictive. We believe that they should normatively refer to > the latest versions of both standards. > > Implementations that do not wish to update to the latest versions of > those standard could indicate their conformance profile by saying > "Supports RDF with Unicode 3.0 and XML 1.0 version 2". Since, > technically speaking, such implementations must(?) reject documents or > models which, e.g., use characters only in Unicode 5.0 this conformance > message seems reasonable. It also frees implementations to be conforming > while accepting such extended documents. > > Cheers, > Bijan. > -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Friday, 23 January 2009 12:58:24 UTC