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

Re: Unicode NFC - status, and RDF Concepts

From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 10:57:47 +0900
Message-ID: <4E93A29B.8010202@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
To: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
CC: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@lab126.com>, Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>, "www-international@w3.org" <www-international@w3.org>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 2011/10/11 0:54, John Cowan wrote:
> 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.

The intent is that they should be normalized (again) before comparison, 
unless you're completely sure they already are.

But giving this a MUST is tough, because it's not actually done 
currently (except for IDNs, but in that case also only for IDN 2003 
and/or TR 46, not for pure IDN 2008).

>> 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.)

Correct. I think Addison meant RDF URIs, i.e. the things that are used 
to identify resources.

Regards,   Martin.
Received on Tuesday, 11 October 2011 01:58:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 21 September 2016 22:37:33 UTC