W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > January 2004

[Fwd: Your comment on the Character Model [024]]

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 21:28:14 +0000
Message-ID: <401191EE.9010904@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Rdf Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>


I think the message below (which only explicitly asked about C024 - a 
personal comment) might also mark that the RDF Core comments have now been 
fully processed. (I suspect they will formally notify us soon - the 
comments are marked as "closed" which seems to be the stage before 
"notified").

See

http://www.w3.org/International/Group/2002/charmod-lc/SortByOriginator.html#C028

and on a bit.

The ones where we had comments that have not been wholly accepted are:

C029 - we suggested charmod was overly broad in scope, while this comment 
was not accepted, comment C035 was reluctantly accepted, which at least 
partially addresses our comment (IMO), by not making charmod mandatory for 
all W3C recs.

One thing that our initial comment reflects was concern about N-triple 
being a ASCII only language. We perhaps ought to review whether we would 
like I18N to make any more effort on that subissue.

C030 - we explicitly made an informative comment that we would not object 
about. They decided it was not helpful.

C031 - dependency on IRI. They accept the spirit of the comment, but not 
our suggestion. They say:
[[
       Rationale: Our plan is that the IRI ID, referenced in this section, 
will have been submitted for Proposed Standard by the time CharMod moves to 
the next stage. IRI equality is fully addressed in the latest IRI ID version.
]]

===

I suggest a response along the lines of:
[[
RDF Core has reviewed the current status of the comments C029, C030, C031.
We believe that our concerns under C029 are adequately addressed by the 
changes you have made in response to C035. We are disappointed but 
unsurprised that our comment C030 was not helpful. We are happy with your 
decision on C031 and look forward to both the IRI Proposed Standard and he 
Charmod Proposed Recommendation.
]]

although we might need to check the N-triple issue before saying this.



Jeremy


-------- Original Message --------
From: "Richard Ishida" <ishida@w3.org>
To: <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <www-i18n-comments@w3.org>

Dear Jeremy,

Many thanks for your comments on the 2nd Last Call version of the Character
Model for the World Wide Web v1.0 [1].  We appreciate the interest you have
taken in this specification.

You can see the comments you submitted on your own account, grouped
together, at
http://www.w3.org/International/Group/2002/charmod-lc/SortByOriginator.html#
C023
(You can jump to a specific comment in the table by adding its ID to the end
of the URI.)

PLEASE REVIEW the decision for the following comment and reply to us within
the next two weeks at mailto:www-i18n-comments@w3.org (copying
w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org) to say whether you are satisfied with the decision
taken.
         C024

Information relating to this comment is included below. Note that we will
reply to other comments you sent on behalf of the RDF Core WG at a later
date.

You can find the latest version of the Character Model at
http://www.w3.org/International/Group/charmod-edit/ .

Best regards,
Richard Ishida, for the I18N WG

USEFUL LINKS
==============
[1] The version of CharMod you commented on:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-charmod-20020430/
[2] Latest editor's version (still being edited):
http://www.w3.org/International/Group/charmod-edit/
[3] Last Call comments table, sorted by ID:
http://www.w3.org/International/Group/2002/charmod-lc/
Received on Friday, 23 January 2004 16:31:27 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Friday, 23 January 2004 16:31:30 EST