- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 12:22:19 -0600
- To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Cc: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 12:45 -0500, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: > On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 06:37:52AM -0500, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 01:10:44PM +0000, Seaborne, Andy wrote: > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > > > From: Ashok Malhotra <> > > > > Date: 13 September 2005 16:28 > > > > > > > > Notes on SPARQL Query Language for RDF > > > > Last Call Draft July 21, 2005 > > > > ... > > > > 6. String comparison is defined only using the code point collation. > > > > Other collations are not supported. This may be a significant > > > > limitation. > > > > > > Code point collation is always required. Access to other collections can be > > > done through a custom function. > > > > @@needs work here -- we say nothing about default vs user-supplied > > collations. > > XPath's fn:matches > http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-functions/#func-matches > now has this exciting thing to say about collations: > [[ > Note: > > Regular expression matching is defined on the basis of Unicode code > points; it takes no account of collations. > ]] > > which means we have no functions that require collations. The sentence > [[ > The collation is defined in section 7.3.1 Collations. > ]] > needs to go away. I don't think we need to repeat the note. > > Do I need a vote on this? If so, we can do it after publication. I haven't studied the details. > or can I strike it before the publication? -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Friday, 18 November 2005 18:22:25 UTC