- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 23:44:35 +0000
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>, RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Brian McBride wrote: > At 20:05 21/11/2002 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > > >> Over early uniform normalization, I am opposed to doing anything other >> than >> deletion. > > > Err, might you share with us why? > I had tried ... I'll try again: (previous explanation) >(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. Retry. I support early uniform normalization. It is about processing and constrains a processing model. The RDF specs do not have a processing model. If we wish to have EUN then we either need to invoke some other spec (e.g. charmod) or define a processing model in order to constrain it (too much like hard work, tail wagging dog). Another option is to leave a paragraph like the 5.1 text in, and half delete it - e.g. make it a note about the future. This is what happened in M&S and it was, with hindsight, a mistake. The option of invoking charmod is now dead, so, as far as I am concerned the best path is a clean deletion of something that I think I would have really preferred to be in. Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 21 November 2002 18:44:53 UTC