- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 12:02:42 +0100
- To: nathan@webr3.org
- Cc: Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>, Ross Singer <rossfsinger@gmail.com>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
On 29 January 2010 00:31, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote: > I have got one kind of big question; why not just be more verbose and > include full URIs? if it ensures that the data is always perfect and > full abstracted from the notion of HTTP (touchy subject?)[1] then why > not do it? Including an xml:base would have the same effect as using full URIs for the same-base links (ensuring the data is always perfect could be harder!) I do think adding an xml:base or using absolute URIs would be a good move, the point re. separation of concerns is a good one. Which approach is easier to implement is another matter (ease of implementation here is probably more significant than questions of verbosity). In practice I've been caught out numerous times with downloaded base-free data, winding up with fairly useless file:/// URIs. Annoying. Cheers, Danny. -- http://danny.ayers.name
Received on Friday, 29 January 2010 11:03:15 UTC