- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:07:52 +0200
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, public-rdf-comments Comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>, Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org>
On 21 August 2012 13:39, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org> wrote:
> All,
>
> While I support the thrust and direction of the change to %-escaping of
> spaces, I think you're being too dismissive of the (possible) legacy base.
> Given that the current RDF specification does allow spaces in RDF URI
> references, I think it would be appropriate to invoke the Postel Principle
> ("be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from
> others").
>
> In this case, I'd suggest something like:
> [[
> RDF applications SHOULD generate IRIs in which spaces are %-encoded, but MAY
> accept RDF containing RDF URI references in which spaces are not %-escaped.
> ]]
I could accept that if we had any evidence that RDF URI references
containing spaces exist anywhere. I'm sure some RDF applications have
to remain secret, but this is quite a cornercase and adds to the
perceived 'complexity tax' long associated with RDF. How many of these
problem URIs have so far been identified 'in the wild'?
Dan
Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2012 12:08:19 UTC