- From: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 16:50:52 -0700
- To: "Dave Beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: "www-rdf-interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> <uri-refs> - except for handing \\ and \" It was carefully > designed so that they can be compared as byte-sequences, since for > each Unicode character there is only one way to escape it. I have no doubt it was carefully designed, but one could question the wisdom of spending RDF WG resources on carefully designing yet another Unicode canonicalization scheme. I have no doubts that the WG would be very responsive to bug reports and would work with anyone who contacted them with problems in the n-triples format. But, if I were the test lead for a platforms project using RDF, I would want more than just the assurance and good will of someone who worked on the spec. I would want: * Proof that the format was widely used, tested, and reliable for transporting international data * Endorsement from some groups who work specifically on international data processing Considering that there already *are* formats which meet those two criteria, and since n-triples at this point meets neither, it would be hard for me to justify choosing n-triples as a testing format. (And FWIW, if I were developing conformance tests for vendors to use to determine conformance to the spec, these issues would, IMO be even more important.)
Received on Thursday, 6 June 2002 19:51:24 UTC