W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > October to December 2012

Re: explanation of I18N-ISSUE-190: attempting to erase combining marks?

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 07:46:31 +0200
To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Cc: RDF-WG WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, Internationalization Core Working Group <www-international@w3.org>, Gavin Carothers <gavin@carothers.name>
Message-ID: <20121002074631905991.9220af78@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Eric Prud'hommeaux, Tue, 2 Oct 2012 01:18:10 -0400:
> explanation of I18N-ISSUE-190: attempting to erase combining marks?
> ===============================================================
> 
> Issue: Section 6.4. PN_CHARS_BASE erases various Unicode ranges 
> without explanation. This appears to be an attempt to eliminate 
> combining marks and the surrogates?
> 
> Turtle's PN_CHARS_BASE
> 
<http://www.w3.org/rdf-clean/rdf-turtle/index.html#grammar-production-PN_CHARS_BASE>
> is derivative of XML's NameStartChar
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-20081126/#NT-NameStartChar>,
> presumably leveraging the wisdom which went into XML

The wisdom expressed in the section you quote from XML only applies to 
documents with a document type declaration - also known as 'dtd':

http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-20081126/#dt-valid

Thus it only relates to XML documents that should be checked for 
validity constraints expressed in a DTD.

> identifiers. Changing this would have very large compatibility impact
> on SPARQL, RDF/XML, OWL's XML format, GRDDL, etc. Is there motivation
> to change XML?

Are there any of those that operates with validity constraints? At 
least RDF/XML does not, AFAIK.

> Please indicate whether this address the stated issue.

-- 
Leif Halvard Silli
Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2012 05:47:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 October 2012 05:47:04 GMT