early uniform normalization RE: concept anchors - RE: Minutes: telecon 2002-11-15

Over early uniform normalization, I am opposed to doing anything other than
deletion.

But ...

Maybe I should look over Dave's text and put the anchor back in somewhere
else. Since even without Early Uniform Normalization (which is a processing
model) we still require that literals and URI refs are normalized (which is
a declarative fact).

(Rationale for opposition to non-deletion)
RDF M&S has these future references on character normalization, and the
future is still not arrived. I think DaveB tells me that future promises
shouldn't be in specs; I have come round to that point of view.

Jeremy


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian McBride [mailto:bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com]
> Sent: 21 November 2002 18:30
> To: Jeremy Carroll; Dave Beckett; Jeremy Carroll; Graham Klyne
> Cc: RDFCore Working Group
> Subject: RE: concept anchors - RE: Minutes: telecon 2002-11-15
>
>
> Is there anything one can usefully say about char normalization,
> e.g. There
> is an issue that should be considered when ... solidifies - and I don't
> mean freezes over :)
>
> Brian
>
> At 17:57 21/11/2002 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>
>
> > >     5.1 Character normalization
> > >     http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#xtocid48034
> >
> >character normalization has gone as promised.
> >
> >hence this link is conceptually broken.
> >
> >Any suggestions?
> >
> >Jeremy
>
>

Received on Thursday, 21 November 2002 14:05:41 UTC