W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2002

RE: NTriples changes for URI-refs - rdf-charmod-uri

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 15:53:26 +0100
To: "Dave Beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: "w3c-rdfcore-wg" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDKEMNCDAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

> We have already approved the 'black charmod-uri tests 1 & 2
>   [[
>   12: Issue: rdf-charmod-literals
>   Discuss test cases in
>      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Apr/0016.html
>   See:
>      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Apr/0016.html
>   DECISION: Black Test Case 1&2 approved
>   ]]
>   -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Apr/0112.html
> (and threw out the grey ones in favour of words in the syntax WD,
> that I already have added)

The approved cases only involved I18N literals.

I am expecting Aaron to at least abstain on the I18N URIs.
(I am not sure why). 

Although on the e-mail, having passed the hiccup from the I18N
guys we seem to have got to the "silence is consent" phase.

The process is that the WG needs to resolve the issue at the
telecon. Dan is right to indicate that changing N-triples is
more or less identical to resolving this issue as I have

I take this to be about timescales.
If we are making this change, it is a relatively small change
to N-triples that should be in the next WD, to be approved on
Friday. If we are not making this change it shouldn't be.

If it's only a small change, why don't you either
post the changed text to the group, or branch the CVS with
the change and we get Brian to table this issue before
agreeing to publish TC WD. Then we can agree to publish
with last-minute editorial update as already seen.

Received on Tuesday, 23 April 2002 14:35:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:12 UTC