Bug in references to XML and Unicode

[Bijan Parsia-3]

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.

[Jeremy Carroll-2]

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@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 11:46 AM
> To: Ivan Herman; www-rdf-comments@...
> 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.