- From: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:55:50 -0800
- To: "'Bijan Parsia'" <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, "'Ivan Herman'" <ivan@w3.org>, <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
- Cc: "'Felix Sasaki'" <fsasaki@w3.org>, "'Martin Duerst'" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
I have forgotten the rationale for this restriction. I believe it arose from a joint meeting RDF Core and I18N in Cannes in 2002 ? (in the bar IIRC) Jeremy > -----Original Message----- > From: Bijan Parsia [mailto:bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk] > Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 11:46 AM > To: Ivan Herman; www-rdf-comments@w3.org > Cc: Jeremy Carroll; Felix Sasaki; Martin Duerst > Subject: Bug in references to XML and Unicode > > We believe that the hard coded references to XML 1.0 version 2 in: > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/ > and > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/ > > and to Unicode 3.0 in > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/ > and > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/ > > are unduly restrictive. We believe that they should normatively refer > to the generically latest versions of both standards. > > Implementations that do not wish to update to the latest versions of > those standard could indicate their conformance profile by saying > "Supports RDF(RDF/XML) with Unicode 3.0 and XML 1.0 version 2". Since, > technically speaking, such implementations must reject documents > or models which, e.g., use characters only in Unicode 5.0 this > conformance message seems reasonable. It also frees implementations > to be conforming while accepting extended documents. > > If we have missed other places with hard code references to particular > versions of XML and Unicode, we think they should be updated too. > > Cheers, > Bijan Parsia, on behalf of the OWL working group. > > P.S., CCed to interested parties suggested by Ivan Herman.
Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2009 20:56:43 UTC