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

Re: RDF Concepts - bad reference?

From: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2011 17:06:52 -0700
Message-ID: <4E92371C.9080909@topquadrant.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
I will follow up with e-mail to the i18n-ig ... I am unclear why 
charmod-norm got stuck. It got hived off to allow the rest of the work 
to go forward. The constraint in RDF Concepts is approximately

literal lexical forms SHOULD be in Unicode Normal Form C

which seems about right to me, but then I was a supporter of 
charmod-norm, and maybe my point of view is not very relevant

Jeremy


On 10/9/2011 2:56 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#section-Literals 
>
>
> refers to charmod section 4 via a WD from 2003.
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-charmod-20030822/#sec-Normalization
>
> but that section isn't in the REC version of charmod.
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/REC-charmod-20050215/
>
>
> The text seems to have gone into
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod-norm/
> http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod-norm/#sec-WhyNormalization
>
> but that seems stuck at Working Draft of 27 October 2005
>
>
> [[
> This came up in understanding a Jena/RIOT user query on prefix names 
> in Turtle illustrated in a DAWG test case but there's a general Turtle 
> issue for literals and prefixed names:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/data-r2/i18n/normalization-01.ttl 
>
> ]]
>
>     Andy
>
Received on Monday, 10 October 2011 00:07:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:45 GMT