Re: [ISSUE 56] Request TAG guidance on preparing a response to the CURIE last call draft

Shane MacCarron writes:

> So I think it makes sense (to me) that the clause say "MUST" 
> instead of "SHOULD".

Good, but I feel that I also owe you another look at the document as a 
whole, as I don't feel I have a well considered position at the moment as 
to whether the above is the best way to to do it.  Since the TAG has asked 
me to gather their opinions too, it probably makes most sense for me to do 
that before going much further with my own.  That said, the above looks 
like a significant step in the right direction to me.  Also, feel free to 
adobpt or adapt for use in the normative section any of the text I 
inadvertently proposed for the non-normative.  Thank you again for your 
careful attention to my concerns.

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------








Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
08/29/2008 12:53 PM
 
        To:     noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
        cc:     www-tag@w3.org
        Subject:        Re: [ISSUE 56] Request TAG guidance on preparing a 
response to the  CURIE  last  call draft




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 17:21:53 UTC