- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:33:19 +0000
- To: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>
- Cc: "W3C OWL Working Group" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 23 Jan 2009, at 13:11, Michael Schneider wrote: >> How's this to start: >> >> We believe that the hard coded references to XML 1.0 version 2 in: >> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/ >> and >> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/ >> >> and to Unicode 3.0 in >> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/ >> and >> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/ >> >> are unduly restrictive. We believe that they should normatively refer >> to the latest versions of both standards. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Meaning the "latest version at every time", i.e. Unicode 5 today, > Unicode 6 > next year, etc., right? Yes. > Perhaps add some clarification such as "(i.e. the > documents should not refer to a particular version number)", > because the > text might also be understood as "latest version numbers NOW", which > wouldn't really be a big win, IMHO. Agreed. How about, """We recommend that RDF be defined by means of a "generic reference" to Unicode in the sense of: http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/#sec-RefUnicode and analogously for XML.""" Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Friday, 23 January 2009 16:29:54 UTC