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 17:31:29 +0200
Message-ID: <483C2951.601@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:
> Ivan Herman wrote:
>> 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...
> http://[2002:ac20:ad::ac20:ad]/whatever for my laptop, for example...

Wow. It looks ugly:-)



> http://[::1]/whatever for loopback interface
>> 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.
> Okay
>> Ivan
>>> 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 15:32:00 UTC

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