- From: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 06:49:34 -0700
- To: "public-rdf-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2012Aug/0019.html etc. I am not sure if we are intending a formal response, my preference would be along the lines of: a) RDF 2004 has an explicit note anticipating the (then) forthcoming IRI spec (now RFC 3987) b) Some current software, essentially ignoring that note, complies with RDF 2004 but not with the IRI spec (and allows spaces etc.) c) The RDF 1.1 spec will, as chartered, align these two, and software that complies with RDF 1.1 will also comply with IRI; and yes implementations which wish to also support the older RDF spec may have some (not insurmountable) difficulty - e.g. be liberal with what you accept and conservative with what you publish Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2012 13:50:06 UTC