W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > August 2011

Re: Oracle's stand regarding N-TRIPLES

From: Alan Wu <ALAN.WU@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 10:26:49 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <1e46dd86-6f1a-476b-82b4-f7feb467dedb@default>
To: <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
Cc: <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Hi Jeremy,

We will look into that. 

Thanks,

Zhe




<br>----- Original Message -----<br>From: jeremy@topquadrant.com<br>To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org<br>Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 9:19:19 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific<br>Subject: Re: Oracle's stand regarding N-TRIPLES<br><br><html>
  <head>
    
  </head>
  <div>
    On 8/19/2011 6:34 PM, Zhe Wu wrote:
    <blockquote cite="mid:4E4F0F2B.7010500@oracle.com">I
      don&#39;t see how adding UTF8 encoding can make N-TRIPLES much more
      useful.</blockquote>
    <br>
    Dear Zhe<br>
    <br>
    The simple answer is that several groups of experts on making the
    internet work world wide have considered the general problem for
    many years and come up with an answer that almost everyone seems
    happy enough with.<br>
    <br>
    Please have your manager and your AC rep read<br>
    <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/#sec-Background" target="_blank">http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/#sec-Background</a><br>
    <br>
    and RFC 2277<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <u><b>Charmod</b></u><br>
    The choice of Unicode was motivated by the fact that Unicode:
    <ul>
      <li>is the only universal character repertoire available,</li>
      <li>provides a way of referencing characters independent of the
        encoding of the text,</li>
      <li>is being updated/completed carefully,</li>
      <li>is widely accepted and implemented by industry.<br>
      </li>
    </ul>
    Characters outside the US-ASCII <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/#iso646" target="_blank">[ISO/IEC 646]</a><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/#MIME-charset" target="_blank">[MIME-charset]</a>
    repertoire are being used in more and more places.<br>
    <br>
    With the international Internet follows an absolute requirement to
    interchange data in a multiplicity of languages, which in turn
    utilize a bewildering number of characters.<br>
    <br>
    <u><b>RFC 2277</b></u><br>
    <br>
    Internationalization is for humans. This means that protocols are
    not subject to internationalization; text strings are. Where
    protocol elements look like text tokens, such as in many IETF
    application layer protocols, protocols MUST specify which parts are
    protocol and which are text. [WR 2.2.1.1] Names are a problem,
    because people feel strongly about them, many of them are mostly for
    local usage, and all of them tend to leak out of the local context
    at times. RFC 1958 [RFC 1958] recommends US-ASCII for all globally
    visible names. This document does not mandate a policy on name
    internationalization, but requires that all protocols describe
    whether names are internationalized or US-ASCII.
    &nbsp;<br>
    <br>
    ***<br>
    <br>
    Jeremy&#39;s note: in RDF the names are explicitly IRIs i.e.
    internationalized.<br>
    <br>
    <u><b>RFC 2277</b></u><br>
    Protocols MUST be able to use the UTF-8 charset<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    ****<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <br>
    Zhe - I currently believe Oracle is threatening a formal objection
    if this <br>
    WG follows mandated practice from IETF and W3C policy documents.<br>
    Is this the intent?<br>
    <br>
    Jeremy<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <br>
  </div>
</html>
Received on Tuesday, 23 August 2011 17:27:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:44 GMT