- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 20:44:00 +0100
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 06:07 PM 10/17/01 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote: [...] >Internally XML documents are in Unicode, even if their serialization is >in some other charset the text has been converted to unicode before we >get to worrying about URI's and IURI's. In practice, I understood the >position to be that IURIs work with UTF-8 as the encoding. If you have a >IURI which is not UTF-8 encoded then you still have to do the %HH >encoding by hand. (This happens in particular with URLs). I'm not sure what it means to say "Internally XML documents are in Unicode" .. I though the XML was essentially a serialization syntax (for a labelled and annotated tree structure). [...] >Furthermore, I think this goes in the RDF/XML syntax WD, and as far as >the model goes a URI is an RFC 2396/2732 URI. The syntax WD should >specify early application of this algorithm, for instance before >aboutEach processing. Yes, I agree this should go in the syntax document. But I note that RFC 2396 recognizes three different presentations of a URI: original character sequence octet sequence URI character sequence I think we'd need to be clear which of these is intended, if that's important. For the model theory, I'm not sure that it is important (as long as its not a non-UTF-8 octet sequence). #g ------------------------------------------------------------ Graham Klyne MIMEsweeper Group Strategic Research <http://www.mimesweeper.com> <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com> ------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2001 15:59:54 UTC