W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > February 2004

[Fwd: Your comments on the Character Model [C028, C029, C030, C031]]

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 10:43:59 +0000
Message-ID: <40309EEF.9080106@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

Hi all,

as expected the I18N formally asking for our opinion on their treatment of 
our comments.

I am not sure when we next might have a telecon, but this is a potential 
agenda item.

I suggested in


a response accepting their decisions. (Since this is the default I guess we 
only *need* to discuss this, in the next two weeks, if someone disagrees 
with that)


-------- Original Message --------

From: "Richard Ishida" <ishida@w3.org>
To: <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <www-i18n-comments@w3.org>
Subject: Your comments on the Character Model [C028, C029, C030, C031]
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 20:25:10 -0000
Dear Jeremy,

Many thanks for your comments on the 2nd Last Call version of the Character
Model for the World Wide Web v1.0 [1].  We appreciate the interest you have
taken in this specification.

You can see the comments you submitted on behalf of the RDF Core Group,
grouped together, at
(You can jump to a specific comment in the table by adding its ID to the end
of the URI.)

PLEASE REVIEW the decisions for the following additional comments and reply
to us within the next two weeks at mailto:www-i18n-comments@w3.org (copying
w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org) to say whether you are satisfied with the decision
         C028, C029, C030, C031

Information relating to these comments is included below.

The Character Model has recently been split into two parts. These comments
relate to the editor's version at

Best regards,
Richard Ishida, for the I18N WG


Jeremy Carroll
	RDF Core WG
	P	MD	Various	Endorsement from RDF Core


       Comment (received 2002-05-27) -- Endorsement from RDF Core

       For the sections 3.4, 4, 6, 9, C, D RDF Core endorses the last call
working draft. We have found earlier drafts helpful in identifying how best
to meet our responsibilities to RDF users world wide. (However, we do not
intend to address all the requirements of these sections in the version of
the RDF recommendations currently in working draft).

       Decision: Not applicable.

       Rationale: We thank you for your endorsement. We have classified this
comment as 'not applicable' because it does not suggest or imply any
changes. We would like to note that the Character Model is written so as to
make clear that specifications do not have to follow all the requirements,
just those that apply in their specific case.

Jeremy Carroll
	RDF Core WG
	P	MD	2	breadth of scope


       Comment (received 2002-05-27) -- breadth of scope

       Concerning sections 1 and 2 RDF Core is concerned that the scope of
charmod is overly broad. In particular, there appears to be no
acknowledgement that some languages being defined by W3C working groups may
not be intended as web languages and hence not have a need to address
internationalization issues. There may be an implicit (and false) assumption
that all W3C recommendations specify (only) web languages with processing

       Our response (sent 2002-05-27) -- Re: breadth of scope

       Comment (received 2002-05-28) -- RE: breadth of scope

       Decision: Not applicable.

       Rationale: We have classified this comment as 'not applicable',
because it is too general. Each CharMod requirement applies only where
applicable. For example, if a specification doesn't deal with sorting, then
requirements related to sorting do not apply. Also, specifications that
don't deal with text (e.g. a bitmap format) would therefore not have any
applicable requrements (except e.g. for textual comments and other
metainformation embedded in the format). We would also like to point out
that the term 'processing model' is taken very widely here. Even if a
specification does not have an explicitly defined processing model, it
implicitly defines how to process (e.g. match) characters. As an example,
RDF conforms to the processing model, on the level of the abstract syntax by
virtue of the fact that the abstract syntax is expressed in Unicode, and on
the level of RDF/XML by virtue of being based on XML.

Jeremy Carroll
	RDF Core WG
	P	MD	3.5	non-universality of processing model


       Comment (received 2002-05-27) -- non-universality of processing model

       For the section 3.5 RDF Core WG notes that the language is somewhat
offputting for us as specification developers given that our specification
explicitly does not have a processing model. We have no particular
suggestions about this, nor would we object if the I18N WG chose not to
address this issue.

       Our response (sent 2002-05-27) -- Re: non-universality of processing

       Comment (received 2002-05-28) -- RE: non-universality of processing

       Decision: Noted.

       Rationale: We have classified this comment as 'Noted', because it did
not contain any suggestions for changes.

       However, in order to address the misunderstanding that we think this
comment exposes, we have added some text (just before C014):

       "Also, while this document uses the term Reference
<emph>Processing</emph> Model and describes its properties in terms of
processing, the model also applies to specifications that do not explicitly
define a processing model."

       We hope that this clarifies the situation for RDF: Even if there is no
processing model for RDF, on the level of text processing, RDF conforms to
the Charmod Reference Processing Model because of the way the abstract
syntax is defined in terms of Unicode characters and because of the way XML
is used.

Jeremy Carroll
	RDF Core WG
	P	MD	8	no dependency on IRI draft


       See also the following comments: C059 C170

       Comment (received 2002-05-27) -- no dependency on IRI draft

       The main concern of the RDF Core WG is section 8. Any normative
section of charmod MUST NOT depend on the IETF IRI draft which is not
finished and is not yet stable. We draw attention to 'SHOULD use
Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRI) [I-D IRI]'. The IRI draft is
only a draft, the reference to it is not normative, and the strength of this
SHOULD dependency appears excessive ('not optional'). In particular, the IRI
draft does not adequately address IRI equality (not merely functional
equivalence in retrieval). Moreover, the bidi section presents a learning
curve which developers are unlikely to want to climb before IRI has
consensus around it; We have found the text in Xlink section 5.4 and XML
Erratum 26 adequately clear for some of the IRI questions, particularly
those that are most pressing for RDF and believe that charmod should merely:

       - reiterate such text;

       - reiterate the early uniform normalization model for the iris when
regarded as unicode strings

       Decision: Partially accepted.

       Rationale: Our plan is that the IRI ID, referenced in this section,
will have been submitted for Proposed Standard by the time CharMod moves to
the next stage. IRI equality is fully addressed in the latest IRI ID

[1] The version of CharMod you commented on:
[2] Latest editor's version (still being edited):
[3] Last Call comments table, sorted by ID:
Received on Monday, 16 February 2004 08:33:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:27 UTC