- From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
- Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 11:54:24 -0400
- To: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@lab126.com>
- Cc: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>, "www-international@w3.org" <www-international@w3.org>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Phillips, Addison scripsit: > The main thrust of the I18N WG's current consensus is that identifiers > must be compared as if normalized in one of the Unicode canonical > normalization forms (i.e. NFC or NFD, not NFKC or NFKD). I don't understand what "as if normalized" means. Does that mean that an identifier comparison routine can assume its inputs are normalized, or that it must normalize them (non-destructively) before comparing? The implementation implications couldn't be more different. > In my opinion, RDF literals fit the definition of "identifiers". I can't imagine why you think so. RDF literals are strings (except when they are typed as numbers, dates, etc.) -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org http://ccil.org/~cowan No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. --John Donne
Received on Monday, 10 October 2011 15:54:51 UTC