W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > March 2002

RE: Weekly Call for Agenda Items

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:16:48 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "RDF Core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 13:59 14/03/2002 +0000, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

> >
> > I propose that:
> >
> > - The Unicode strings within RDF literals are required to be in NFC.
> > - We note that literals whose unicode strings start with a combining
> > character may not be serializable in an XML document that conforms with
> > forthcoming Character Model Recommendations.
> > - We include a test case of such a literal as legal, to be reviewed if
> > Charmod reaches rec before we do.
> >
> >
>And that in the definition of the RDF graph we use MUST language, whereas in
>the discussion of RDF/XML we indicate that parsers SHOULD use normalizing
>transcoders, (with a reference to a CHARMOD WD).
>Issue: do we want a note saying that non normalized unicode input MUST NOT
>be normalized. (This is one of the safe guards in charmod, but it assumes
>that specs are defining a processing model, and we are not).

I'm confused here.  Why do we say the a parser should use a normalizing 
transcoder whilst at the same time saying it MUST NOT normalize 
non-normalized unicode?

Dumbo of Bristol
Received on Thursday, 14 March 2002 11:19:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:56 UTC