W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > September 2001

RE: 2001-09-07#5 Literals

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 19:22:01 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 04:51 PM 9/24/01 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> > >[12]
> > >RDF/XML documents SHOULD be W3C-normalized as specified in
> > >[CHARMOD]. Moreover, after the stripping of comments and
> > >processing instructions an RDF/XML document SHOULD still be
> > >W3C-normalized. It is the responsibility of the document
> > >creator to fulfil this requirement. RDF/XML processors MUST NOT
> > >correct input that is not W3C-normalized.
> >
> > I'm not sure what is the value of saying this.
> >
> > It seems to me that this would be an application concern,
> > if an RDF processor is still expected to accept non-normalized XML
> > as a literal.  Hence I'd rather say nothing here.
>My reading of CHARMOD was that the principle of early normalization was
>important. To be in accord with this, we should prohibit later

OK.  If it's important, then why not "documents MUST be W3C-normalized"?

In which case, I think your response to my comment about binary comparison 
would stand on
firmer ground.  I don't have a strong view about whether or not it's a Good 
Thing;  my comments are aimed at trying to avoid "half specifications" that 
don't seem to add value.


Graham Klyne                    MIMEsweeper Group
Strategic Research              <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
Received on Monday, 24 September 2001 14:29:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:04 UTC