- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 15:24:13 +0100
- To: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Aaron Swartz" <me@aaronsw.com>, "RDF Core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Thanks Brian It feels somewhat bad mannered to ask for your reasons and then try and rebutt them, but I guess that's the process ... > >debate in telecon and e-mail. I would particularly like to hear from Jos > >and Brian as to why they voted against. > > 1. I see this as a change. > > 2. No case for making this change has been made. I think that a clear case has been made for the need for clarification. A case has been made for making this change^H^H^H^H^Hlarification; however you have not found it compelling. > > 3. I am wary of building on other specs that are not stable and well > understood. I see no strong advantage to RDF in supporting this > now and it increases our risks. I agree, and I am not advocating building on the IRI spec for that reason. I believe that RDF Core has responsibilities to the international community which cannot be addressed simply by saying that the IRI spec is not cooked so we will leave things vague. I think this decision does need to be backed up by comments on Charmod, IRI draft (and XML 1.1 vis-a-vis namespace identifiers) that indicate where we are going and getting consensus around that. > > 4. As most implemenations don't support it now, it will decrease > interoperability interoperability of US-ASCII URIs is not impacted. There is no current interoperability of non US-ASCII URIs because no spec indicates whether upper case or lower case % escaping should be done. > > 5. This is pushing our charter; it violates the closest thing I have to > a principal for what is in and what is out of charter I think this reflects item 2. You find the need for clarification less than compelling; hence you have doubts about whether this is in-scope. > > There is no strong reason to do it now. There are disadvantages to doing > it now. Don't do it now. If we are convinced that this change is right, it costs less to make the change now than in the future. > > Brian > > Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 30 April 2002 10:24:19 UTC