W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: Unicode NFC - status, and RDF Concepts

From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 11:54:24 -0400
To: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@lab126.com>
Cc: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>, "www-international@w3.org" <www-international@w3.org>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20111010155424.GA31689@mercury.ccil.org>
Phillips, Addison scripsit:

> The main thrust of the I18N WG's current consensus is that identifiers
> must be compared as if normalized in one of the Unicode canonical
> normalization forms (i.e. NFC or NFD, not NFKC or NFKD). 

I don't understand what "as if normalized" means.  Does that mean that
an identifier comparison routine can assume its inputs are normalized,
or that it must normalize them (non-destructively) before comparing?
The implementation implications couldn't be more different.

> In my opinion, RDF literals fit the definition of "identifiers". 

I can't imagine why you think so.  RDF literals are strings (except
when they are typed as numbers, dates, etc.)

-- 
John Cowan  cowan@ccil.org    http://ccil.org/~cowan
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the
continent, a part of the main.  If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a
manor of thy friends or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for
whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.  --John Donne
Received on Monday, 10 October 2011 15:54:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 10 October 2011 15:54:52 GMT