Re: Charmod conformance

>I note that the second last call character model doc has just been
>published:
>
>http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-charmod-20010928/
>
>.....
>I propose two charmod issues to be added to the issues list:
>
>   charmod-literals
>   ================
>          Does the treatment of RDF Literals in the Model Theory
>          and the RDF/XML syntax confrom with charmod.
>          What does NTriple have to do?
>
>and
>
>   charmod-uri
>   ===========
>          Does the treatment of uri-references in the
>          RDF/XML syntax conform with charmod?
>          Does the treatment of property nodes and typed
>          nodes conform with charmod?
>          What does the model have to do?
>          What does NTriple have to do?
>
>
>[Those question phrased "Does the ..." indicate my prejudice that we should
>conform, whereas those phrased "What does ..." indicate my prejudice that we
>should not conform, but need to make a reasoned defence of that decision.]

I agree. The key point for us seems to be this from section 3.4:

"
Character string: A string viewed as a sequence of characters, each 
represented by a code point in [Unicode]. This is usually what 
programmers consider to be a string, although it may not match 
exactly what most users perceive as characters. This is the highest 
layer of abstraction that ensures interoperability with very low 
implementation effort. [S] This definition is generally the most 
useful and SHOULD be used by most specifications, following the 
examples of Production [2] of [XML 1.0], the SGML declaration of 
[HTML 4.01], and the character model of [RFC 2070].
"

Pat
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes