- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:53:46 -0500
- To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
- CC: www-tag@w3.org
noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote: > Thank you for pointing out the informative, normative distinction. I > obviously had misread the text I quoted as normative. I certainly would > not advocate any MUSTs in non-normative text. Let me give it some > thought. Have you given any consideration to making what you quote as a > SHOULD a MUST? It seems to me an outright error to rely on CURIE > interpretation of a string in a field that's specified as a URI. > We have discussed from time to time whether it ought to be a MUST. You are correct that there is never a situation where a URI and a CURIE can peacefully co-exist in the same attribute value. Such an attribute would have to take as its value (at a minimum) the datatype URIorSafeCURIE as defined in Appendix A. So I think it makes sense (to me) that the clause say "MUST" instead of "SHOULD". I will of course need to ratify such a change with the working group. I will socialize the idea over there, but await your formal comments before making any real changes to the source. -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Friday, 29 August 2008 16:55:29 UTC