W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > May 2008

Re: ISSUE-103: substantive issue that requires opinion + discussion

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 17:19:06 +0200
Message-ID: <483C266A.7060701@w3.org>
To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>, RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>

Shane McCarron wrote:
> Actually, I think it is a huge deal and buys us nothing.  The CURIE spec 
> is in last call, and we cannot diverge from that.  We have no such 
> comment against the CURIE spec.  If we did, I am confident we would 
> reject it because, as we all agree, a CURIE is not a new URI mechanism.  
> CURIEs are never used over the wire, so they do not need to have their 
> own scheme.  As to future-proofing.... it is already future proof.  The 
> only situation where a bracket will ever be a legal character in a URI 
> is in the hostname portion (for IPv6 addresses).  And a hostname cannot 

Really? Just out of a technical curiosity: how would that look in IPv6? 
I did not know that...

But, regardless, you answered my only pending question in my original 
response, so I would agree we should not make this change and give a 
proper answer to Jonathan.


> be there without a scheme... so there cannot ever be a conflict.  I do 
> not think this is anything we need to worry about.  We have bigger fish 
> to fry.


Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Tuesday, 27 May 2008 15:19:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:28 UTC