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

Re: Proposal for resolving ISSUE-64

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 18:03:23 +0100
Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <593B3A91-5F1D-48AF-B0A7-2A3B9E86E3EC@cyganiak.de>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
On 31 May 2011, at 16:04, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> On 5/30/2011 4:29 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>> Ok, I think the sanest course of action is to set the bar high, require the tag to be valid, and note that previous versions didn't do so.
>> 
>> PROPOSAL: Resolve ISSUE-64 by replacing the current text:
>> 
>> [[
>> Plain literals have a lexical form and optionally a language tag as defined by [RFC3066], normalized to lowercase.
>> ]]
>> 
>> with:
>> 
>> [[
>> Plain literals have a lexical form and optionally a language tag as defined by [RFC5646]. The language tag, if present, MUST be well-formed according to section 2.2.9 of [RFC5646], and MUST be normalized to lowercase.
>> 
>> NOTE: Earlier versions of RDF permitted tags that adhered to the generic tag/subtag syntax of language tags, but were not well-formed according to [RFC5646]. Such language tags do not conform to RDF 1.1.
>> ]]
>> 
> 
> Note that "valid" and "well-formed" are different concepts in RFC 5646, valid means well-formed, and the various subtags used are actually present in various registries.

Exactly. The set of valid tags can change over time when new languages are registered. This is why the proposal only asks for well-formedness.

Richard
Received on Tuesday, 31 May 2011 17:03:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:43 GMT