- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 20:16:18 +0100
- To: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>, Francois Yergeau <FYergeau@alis.com>
- Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Martin Duerst wrote: > > At 12:55 03/10/02 -0400, Francois Yergeau wrote: > >> Brian McBride wrote: >> > [[ >> > The string in both plain and typed literals SHOULD be in >> > Unicode Normal >> > Form C [NFC]. This is motivated by anticipation that [Charmod], >> > particularly section 4 Early Uniform Normalization will become >> > standardized practice. Implementations SHOULD accept strings >> > which are >> > not in Normal Form C and MAY issue a warning in such circumstances. >> > ]] >> >> My personal opinion only: the first part would be consistent with the >> current state of Charmod, in which most of the normalization-related >> requirements have been softened to SHOULDs. Cool. >> >> The last part, however, is not consistent with the first. If data >> SHOULD be >> normalized, then implementations SHOULD NOT accept it when not normalized >> (but may, if "the full implications must be understood and carefully >> weighed >> before choosing a different course" [RFC2119] is fulfilled) and SHOULD >> issue >> a warning in such circumstances. > > > I agree with Francois; saying that non-normalized strings SHOULD > be accepted is virtually a non-requirement that doesn't really > allow to deal with normalization issues. What are we to do Martin? We have an objection which in part complains that XML Literals don't support all of XML 1.0 since they rule out XML that isn't nfc. We are trying to find a way to be compatible with the *current* xml spec i.e. allow all of it, whilst encouraging folks to adopt the practice I18N recommend. How should we respond to this objection? Brian
Received on Thursday, 2 October 2003 15:17:37 UTC