Re: Call for Consensus: IRI resolution tests

>>> I disagree here—there Turtle spec should cover this.
>> 
>> "should" or "does"? Are you arguing for a change to Turtle?

I'm arguing that the spec made a mistake not to cover this explicitly.

>> If it's a change, then -1 to these tests.

Not a change, but an attempt to interpret the ambiguous wording in the spec
along the lines of what was actually intended.

>> One way is to avoid the area that is a problem for 3986 and change the tests to use the "/../" from the "/.." form.

Would be fine with me;
the problem is that these cases can still occur in Turtle documents.
If they do, is the behavior then up to the implementer?

>> ... in the one case where the base URI ends in "/.." which isn't good practice; RFC 3987/5.3.2.4 even says it is not intended usage.

If we decide not to have tests for this for that reason,
it would be good to have a note somewhere saying that
the output of parsing (valid) Turtle documents
with URIs ending in "/.." is not well-defined.

>> The spec being Turtle?
>> 
>> Please quote text where it says that about @base.
> 
> The key for me was this sentence from the IRIs section:
> 
> > Relative IRIs like <#green-goblin> are resolved relative to the current base IRI.

+1

Ruben

Received on Monday, 26 October 2015 09:31:35 UTC