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

Re: Unicode NFC - status, and RDF Concepts

From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 01:58:21 +0000
Cc: "Phillips, Addison , Jeremy Carroll , www-international@w3.org , RDF Working Group WG" <addison@lab126.com>
Message-Id: <4E93A29B.8010202@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
To: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
On 2011/10/11 0:54, John Cowan wrote:
> Phillips, Addison scripsit:
> 
>> The main thrust of the I18N WG's current consensus is that identifiers
>> must be compared as if normalized in one of the Unicode canonical
>> normalization forms (i.e. NFC or NFD, not NFKC or NFKD).
> 
> I don't understand what "as if normalized" means.  Does that mean that
> an identifier comparison routine can assume its inputs are normalized,
> or that it must normalize them (non-destructively) before comparing?
> The implementation implications couldn't be more different.

The intent is that they should be normalized (again) before comparison, unless you're completely sure they already are.

But giving this a MUST is tough, because it's not actually done currently (except for IDNs, but in that case also only for IDN 2003 and/or TR 46, not for pure IDN 2008).

>> In my opinion, RDF literals fit the definition of "identifiers".
> 
> I can't imagine why you think so.  RDF literals are strings (except
> when they are typed as numbers, dates, etc.)

Correct. I think Addison meant RDF URIs, i.e. the things that are used to identify resources.

Regards,   Martin.



Received on Tuesday, 11 October 2011 06:52:57 GMT

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