- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 06:40:10 +0200
- To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Dave question normative nature of CHARMOD ref. My analysis is as follows: 1: section 3 had normative dependencies by mistake. The intent, not properly wordsmithed, is that the references to CHARMOD and XML Schema concerning RDF Literals are informative rather than normative. I will correct. 2: Section 4.1 on early uniform normalization http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/RDF-basics/2002-07-25/Overview.htm#xtocid48034 does normatively depend on charmod. I added this as part of what I understood as the deal with the I18N WG from the Cannes plenary. My view is: - if charmod has sufficiently progressed down the rec track at last call than we leave 4.1 and the normative ref - if charmod has not, we excise section 4.1 and move the ref to informative The motivation for this view is that of the many things required for full charmod conformance, early uniform normalization is: (a) has the biggest practical impact and (b) is explicitly mentioned in M&S. Hence I think, if at all appropriate, we should clarify M&S and make it easy for RDF2 to be fully charmod conformant. However, given the rules of not having normative dependencies on non-recs, and given the implausibility of in-lining the concept, if I18N have not got their act together sufficiently then we have to (reluctantly?) drop it. ==== Summary: propose to leave the normative dependency in this WD and revisit shortly before last call. add editorial note to document at section 4.1 to that effect. Jeremy
Received on Saturday, 27 July 2002 00:34:19 UTC