- From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 18:27:41 +0000
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, public-rdf-comments@w3.org
David, The working group has decided to make the canonical N-Triples description a separate section. Please could you reply with "[RESOLVED]" in the subject line to acknowledge handling of this comment. Andy On 06/12/13 21:33, David Booth wrote: > On 12/06/2013 05:19 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: >> (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. > > I think that's an excellent idea. > > David > >> >> 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 Wednesday, 11 December 2013 18:28:11 UTC