- From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
- Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 10:19:50 +0000
- To: public-rdf-comments@w3.org
(not an official response) David, It is too late in the spec cycle to introduce SHOULD/MUST language -- it is asking implementers to read the spec differently to the LC, CR versions. What I will suggest to the WG is making the description of canonical N-Triples a separate section, not just a subpart of the conformance section. While this is "editorial" - it's the same text, just moved and reworded if it didn't read correctly any more - we are very close to the transition to PR so I feel it needs to be discussed by the WG. Draft in editors working draft. Andy On 03/12/13 22:41, David Booth wrote: > Regarding section 4, Conformance: > https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-turtle/n-triples.html > > It would be helpful if tools that generate N-Triples were strongly > encouraged to generate it in canonical form unless there would be a > significant loss to the user in doing so. For example, if a tool > normally generates useful information in comments, it may be better to > generate non-canonical N-Triples, since canonical N-Triples would > require the comments to be removed. > > I suggest adding something like the following to section 4: > > "Tools that generate N-Triples documents SHOULD generate > **canonical N-Triples documents** unless doing so would > result in a significant loss in functionality or performance. > For example, if a tool normally generates useful information > in comments, it may be preferable to generate non-canonical > N-Triples, since canonical N-Triples requires comments to be > removed." > > Please note that the RDF 2119 definition of SHOULD is: > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt > [[ > 3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there > may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a > particular item, but the full implications must be understood and > carefully weighed before choosing a different course. > ]] > > Because SHOULD allows this judgement-call-based wiggle room, this change > would not have to affect any conformance tests. > > If the working group decides that a "SHOULD" would be too strong, please > instead add an editorial comment to the above effect instead, such as by > saying "are strongly encouraged to" instead of "SHOULD". > > Thanks, > David >
Received on Friday, 6 December 2013 10:20:22 UTC