- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:16:48 +0000
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "RDF Core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 13:59 14/03/2002 +0000, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > > > I propose that: > > > > - The Unicode strings within RDF literals are required to be in NFC. > > - We note that literals whose unicode strings start with a combining > > character may not be serializable in an XML document that conforms with > > forthcoming Character Model Recommendations. > > - We include a test case of such a literal as legal, to be reviewed if > > Charmod reaches rec before we do. > > > > >And that in the definition of the RDF graph we use MUST language, whereas in >the discussion of RDF/XML we indicate that parsers SHOULD use normalizing >transcoders, (with a reference to a CHARMOD WD). > >Issue: do we want a note saying that non normalized unicode input MUST NOT >be normalized. (This is one of the safe guards in charmod, but it assumes >that specs are defining a processing model, and we are not). I'm confused here. Why do we say the a parser should use a normalizing transcoder whilst at the same time saying it MUST NOT normalize non-normalized unicode? Dumbo of Bristol Brian
Received on Thursday, 14 March 2002 11:19:17 UTC