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

Charmod review

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 13:50:40 +0100
To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDOEPGCDAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>


I have now reviewed charmod.

I attach a summary of the things we would need to consider to conform with
charmod.
I do not propose we address these in our specs, but postpone this issue to
RDF 2.

Here is my proposed comment on charmod.
Given that they use some web based system for recording issues the actual
form of any issues we raise may differ, but I suggest we discuss this text.

Upto and including the first paragraph of the body of the message looks
like an e-mail, with the last two paragraphs each adding one issue to their
issue list.

=========

The RDF Core WG has feedback concerning the following sections
of charmod:

1. Introduction
2. Conformance
3.4 Strings
3.5 Reference Processing Model
4. Early Uniform Normalization
6. String Identity Matching
8. Characeter Encoding in URI References
9. Referencing the Unicode Standard
A.2 Other References
C. Composing Characters
D. Resources for Normalization


{{ the other sections are not relevant to RDF }}


Dave, please review section 9.

http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod#sec-RefUnicode


For the sections 1,2, 3.4, 4, 6, 9, C. D.
RDF Core fully endorses the last call working draft.
We have found earlier drafts helpful in identifying how best to meet our
responsibilities to RDF users world wide. While the current RDF drafts do
not fully conform with  all the requirements of these sections, we believe
that in a further revision of RDF it will be valuable to address all the
remaining ones.

{{ i.e. the issues in the attached list, excluding the IRI ones }}

For the section 3.5 we note that the language is somewhat offputting for us
as specification developers given that our specification explicitly does
not have a processing model. We have no particular suggestions about this,
nor would we object if the I18N WG chose not to address this issue.


Our main concern is with section 8 (and the IRI reference in A.2),
partciularly the requirement that specs "SHOULD use Internationalized
Resource Identifiers (IRI) [I-D IRI]".
The IRI draft is only a draft, the reference to it is not normative, and
the strength of this SHOULD dependency appears excessive ("not optional").
In particular, the IRI draft does not
adequately address IRI equality (not merely functional equivalence in
retrieval).
Moreover, the bidi section presents a learning curve which developers are
unlikely to want to climb before IRI has consensus around it; We have found
the text in Xlink section 5.4 and XML Erratum 26 adequately clear for some
of the IRI questions, particularly those
that are most pressing for RDF and believe that charmod should merely:
- reiterate such text;
- reiterate the early uniform normalization model for the iris when
regarded as unicode strings
-  note that section 8 will be superseded by IRI-draft when it becomes a
recommendation.

===============

I am independently raising some very minor editorial issues.

Jeremy





Received on Tuesday, 14 May 2002 09:11:02 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:48:14 EDT