- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 10:11:46 +0100
- To: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org
Martin Duerst wrote: > > Hello Jeremy, > > Sorry to be late with my reply; as I wrote in another mail, I was > traveling. > > > At 09:32 03/09/09 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > >> Copying to i18n to request help on correct application of charmod. See >> the two paragraphs between ****. > > > Are these two paras supposed to go into a spec, or just serve as > the official answer? For the second, they seem quite appropriate > to me. > > Regards, Martin. > > It was the second, thanks for your help. Jeremy >> >> **** >> The RDF Core WG has previously identified the lexical form of literals >> as the relevant construct, around which NFC should be required. >> While we have been aware of transitional issues, since the specs we >> build on (XML 1.0 and XSD) do not require NFC, we do not see those >> issues as insufficient to not migrate the RDF recommendation. >> >> It is clear that applications working with XML 1.0 and the current >> version of XSD datatypes may choose to be more lenient than this part >> of our specification, and then what they should do, is also clarified >> in charmod. i.e. they must not normalize. Since the recommendation is >> clear that these are errors, the responsibility for fixing them is clear. >> ****
Received on Wednesday, 17 September 2003 05:22:32 UTC