- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 13:37:41 -0500
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>, public-rdf-comments@w3.org
I am satisfied with this resolution. Thanks! David On 12/11/2013 01:27 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote: > David, > > The working group has decided to make the canonical N-Triples > description a separate section. > > Please could you reply with "[RESOLVED]" in the subject line to > acknowledge handling of this comment. > > Andy > > On 06/12/13 21:33, David Booth wrote: >> On 12/06/2013 05:19 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: >>> (not an official response) >>> >>> David, >>> >>> It is too late in the spec cycle to introduce SHOULD/MUST language -- it >>> is asking implementers to read the spec differently to the LC, CR >>> versions. >>> >>> What I will suggest to the WG is making the description of canonical >>> N-Triples a separate section, not just a subpart of the conformance >>> section. >> >> I think that's an excellent idea. >> >> David >> >>> >>> While this is "editorial" - it's the same text, just moved and reworded >>> if it didn't read correctly any more - we are very close to the >>> transition to PR so I feel it needs to be discussed by the WG. >>> >>> Draft in editors working draft. >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> On 03/12/13 22:41, David Booth wrote: >>>> Regarding section 4, Conformance: >>>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-turtle/n-triples.html >>>> >>>> It would be helpful if tools that generate N-Triples were strongly >>>> encouraged to generate it in canonical form unless there would be a >>>> significant loss to the user in doing so. For example, if a tool >>>> normally generates useful information in comments, it may be better to >>>> generate non-canonical N-Triples, since canonical N-Triples would >>>> require the comments to be removed. >>>> >>>> I suggest adding something like the following to section 4: >>>> >>>> "Tools that generate N-Triples documents SHOULD generate >>>> **canonical N-Triples documents** unless doing so would >>>> result in a significant loss in functionality or performance. >>>> For example, if a tool normally generates useful information >>>> in comments, it may be preferable to generate non-canonical >>>> N-Triples, since canonical N-Triples requires comments to be >>>> removed." >>>> >>>> Please note that the RDF 2119 definition of SHOULD is: >>>> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt >>>> [[ >>>> 3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there >>>> may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a >>>> particular item, but the full implications must be understood and >>>> carefully weighed before choosing a different course. >>>> ]] >>>> >>>> Because SHOULD allows this judgement-call-based wiggle room, this >>>> change >>>> would not have to affect any conformance tests. >>>> >>>> If the working group decides that a "SHOULD" would be too strong, >>>> please >>>> instead add an editorial comment to the above effect instead, such >>>> as by >>>> saying "are strongly encouraged to" instead of "SHOULD". >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> David >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 11 December 2013 18:38:09 UTC