encoding specification in the syntax document?

Boris,

while looking at the UCS vs Unicode question (to be discussed
separately) a question came up: what is exactly the situation with the
functional syntax? It does not say whether the ontology is defined using
UCS or Unicode (let us put aside for a moment which one) and which
encoding is used. Shouldn't it be said somewhere?

Of course the fact that it uses Unicode is, sort of, indirectly there:
it uses IRI and the literals' lexical spaces are, I presume, all in
UCS/Unicode (does it say in the XML Schema doc? Probably). But it is
better to make it explicit.

But the encoding issue still remains. We could say that it is encoded in
UTF-8 (this is what Turtle does, for example), or we could specify that
UTF-8 is the default and introduce another thingy in the grammar to
possibly override that. I personally do not see an issue in sticking to
UTF-8 (although it is not an efficient encoding for Asian languages...).
But we should say it somewhere...

Did I miss something?

Cheers

Ivan


-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf