W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-i18n-comments@w3.org > May 2002

XMLP WG response to Charmod LC#2

From: David Fallside <fallside@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 14:09:38 -0700
To: www-i18n-comments@w3.org
Cc: w3c-xml-protocol-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF608FAE3F.807C9BDA-ON88256BC9.007357C2@boulder.ibm.com>

Here are the XML Protocol Working Group's comments on the Charmod LC #2
at:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-charmod-20020430/

They are categorized as requested (Substantive,Editorial,Typo,Question,O
ther)

1. Type: Q
      - 1.1 Goals and Scope, second last paragraph
      - "All W3C specifications must conform to this document (see section
      2 Conformance)."
      - This statement seems too comprehensive and probably needs
      qualification.  What about existing W3C specifications or a W3C
      specification whose status is very close to LC (e.g. XMLP's)?
      - Suggest:  "All W3C specifications published after [a certain date
      or event such as this Charmod becoming a recommendation] must conform
      to this document (... etc)."

2. Type: S
      - 4.4 Responsibility for Normalization, 8th paragraph, 1st  sentence
      - "[S] Specifications of text-based formats and protocols MUST, as
      part of their syntax definition, require that the text be in
      normalized form"
      - In our previous response to the Charmod WD review [1], we said
      "The XML Protocol processor  will defer to applications any
      normalization (early or late) that may be required for sending and/or
      receiving application payload(s)."
      We received confirmation [2] from i18n WG that that is acceptable:
      "> *  XML protocol need not normalize application payloads or check
      to insure that they are normalized
      Correct."
      The XMLP WG would like to see clarification of this [S] requirement
      in relation to the payload's normalization or lack thereof.

3. Type: S
      - 4.4 Responsibility for Normalization, 8th paragraph, 1st  sentence
      - "[S] Specifications of text-based formats and protocols MUST, as
      part of their syntax definition, require that the text be in
      normalized form"
      - In a previous review [2], we asked the question: "May
      intermediaries re-send payloads (either normalized or un-normalized)
      untouched, even though they may change the protocol envelope?"  From
      this requirement, do we take it that re-sent text is to  be
      normalized when forwarded?  However, please see comment 2.

4. Type: S
      - 4.4 Responsibility for Normalization, 9th paragraph, 1st  sentence
      - "[S] [I] A text-processing component that receives suspect text
      MUST NOT perform any normalization-sensitive operations unless it has
      first confirmed through inspection that the text is in normalized
      form,and MUST NOT normalize the suspect text"
      - It would be helpful to give the reason(s) for the prohibition
      against normalizing the suspect text.

5. Type: S
      - 4.4 Responsibility for Normalization, 9th paragraph, 1st  sentence
      - "...and MUST NOT normalize the suspect text"
      - In a previous review [2], we asked the question: "If un-normalized
      text is rejected and returned to sender, does it have to be
      normalized before transmission?"  From this requirement, do we take
      it that rejected un-normalized text is to remain un-normalized when
      returned?

6. Type: S
      - 4.4 Responsibility for Normalization, last [S] requirement
      - "[S] Specifications that define a mechanism (for example an API or
      a defining language) for producing a document SHOULD require that the
      final output of this mechanism be normalized."
      - Is a document text-based format?  Is this requirement covered by
      the earlier one - "[S] Specifications of text-based formats and
      protocols MUST, as part of their syntax definition, require that the
      text be in normalized form."?   However, the earlier requirement is
      stronger ("MUST") than this one ("SHOULD").


[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2001Feb/0102.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-i18n-ig/2001Mar/0198.html
Received on Thursday, 30 May 2002 18:41:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:32:31 GMT