- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 08:59:50 -0500
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > Dan wrote: > > > > > see the W3C charmod spec (and the HTML 4.01 spec, > > and the XLink spec, and a recent IURI internet draft) for official > > specification of this unicode-to-URI stuff. > > > > Dan, > > the charmod spec is currently a Last Call working draft. charmod is a relatively recent specification of this feature, but the feature itself is baked into HTML 4.0, XML 1.0, XLink, and RDF 1.0: Note: Although non-ASCII characters in URIs are not allowed by [URI], [XML] specifies a convention to avoid unnecessary incompatibilities in extended URI syntax. Implementors of RDF are encouraged to avoid further incompatibility and use the XML convention for system identifiers. Namely, that a non-ASCII character in a URI be represented in UTF-8 as one or more bytes, and then these bytes be escaped with the URI escaping mechanism (i.e., by converting each byte to %HH, where HH is the hexadecimal notation of the byte value). By that wording, non-ascii characters in rdf:resource are an error, and there's a suggested way to recover from the error. By the more modern specs (XLink, charmod) this is no longer an error but a 1st class feature. I guess it's not totally obvious that we should follow XLink on this, but if we don't, we owe the I18N WG a last-call comment on charmod saying we're not going along with this. I expect they wouldn't be happy. > If we want to punt this sort of issue to I18N WG by referring to charmod > is it allowed? The I18N WG has given its answer in the charmod spec; it's a question of whether we want to follow along. > Or do we need to punt to something further along the standardization > process, or can we punt to a future document. No, RDF 1.0 had the above note, and I think following charmod is a reasonable interpretation of it. > e.g. to the successor of charmod in the W3C track ... > > I am thinking particularly about: > > rdf:about=URI-reference > > and > > Unicode Normalization > > Also: > > will charmod finish soon (before us?). I'm not sure when charmod will finish, but as I say, it doesn't really matter: there are plenty of RECs for precedent (XLink, at least). > Jeremy -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 20 September 2001 09:01:02 UTC