W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2003

Re: FW: IRIs and NFC

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 10:24:42 +0100
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9621.1049448282@hoth.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

>>>Jeremy Carroll said:
> See (member only)
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2003Apr/0047.html
> for the full message.
> From: Martin Durst
> -----(Edited) Original Message-----
> ...
> Jeremy:
> >
> >I wanted to express some urgency on the request concerning IRIs and NFC.
> ...
> >
> >It would be very helpful to RDFCore if we can have a simple yes/no to the
> >question "Should RDF restrict its use of IRIs to NFC?", ideally before our
> >telecon tomorrow (approx 21 hours from now).
> ...
> I think making no mention for NFC in IRIs is better, because otherwise
> you may get into conflicts with the IRI spec if it is tweaked. (I don't
> expect any big changes regarding NFC in IRIs, but tweaks might happen.)
> On the question of NFC for RDF overall, as you personally know, we have
> backed up a bit from the position that everybody MUST check and reject.
> Check and reject for NFC is now just a SHOULD.

Great, that sounds good i.e. we will be compatible (by weakening our
NFC MUST to a SHOULD) but not directly based on the still-changing
IRI work.

Apart from wordings, lThat means any of our test cases that
previously tested the MUST need to be removed and made optional.
That will need a new type of test.

> What is definitely still true, in all cases, is that 'applications'
> (such as RDF) MUST NOT normalize stuff themselves.

OK.  I think that is already record.

Received on Friday, 4 April 2003 04:27:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:05 UTC