- From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 17:10:30 +0000
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
In my case, silence is consent on this issue. (I took a quick look and it seemed OK, though I didn't cross-check the issues in great detail.) #g -- At 10:43 16/02/04 +0000, Jeremy Carroll wrote: >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 > >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2004Jan/0076 > >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) > > >Jeremy > > > > >-------- 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 >http://www.w3.org/International/Group/2002/charmod-lc/SortByGroup.html#C028 >(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 >taken. > 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 >http://www.w3.org/International/Group/charmod-edit/charmod1.html > >Best regards, >Richard Ishida, for the I18N WG > > > > >DECISIONS REQUIRING A RESPONSE >============================== > >C028 Na Na C Jeremy Carroll > RDF Core WG > P MD Various Endorsement from RDF Core > > * > > Comment (received 2002-05-27) -- Endorsement from RDF Core >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2002May/0017.html > > 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. > > > > > > > >C029 Na Na C 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 >models. > * > > 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. > > > > >C030 E N C 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 >model > * > > Comment (received 2002-05-28) -- RE: non-universality of processing >model > * > > 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. > > > > >C031 S P C 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 >version. > > > > > > > >USEFUL LINKS >============== >[1] The version of CharMod you commented on: >http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-charmod-20020430/ >[2] Latest editor's version (still being edited): >http://www.w3.org/International/Group/charmod-edit/charmod1.html >http://www.w3.org/International/Group/charmod-edit/charmod2.html >[3] Last Call comments table, sorted by ID: >http://www.w3.org/International/Group/2002/charmod-lc/ > ------------ Graham Klyne For email: http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Monday, 16 February 2004 12:50:53 UTC