- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 19:22:01 +0100
- 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: >J: > > >[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. > >gk: > > > > 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 >normalization. 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. #g ------------------------------------------------------------ Graham Klyne MIMEsweeper Group Strategic Research <http://www.mimesweeper.com> <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com> ------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 24 September 2001 14:29:50 UTC