W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > May 2010

Re: On ISSUE-6 (invalid values in @datatypes cause plain literals to be generated)

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 16:56:42 +0200
Cc: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, W3C RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1454B08A-8B1B-4E80-B765-CCD6C9323C39@w3.org>
To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>

On May 17, 2010, at 15:53 , Shane McCarron wrote:

> FWIW it was my *intent* that we only permit absolute URIs.  I remember that we debated this, I don't remember when nor why.  However, just from a processing / parsing perspective, I think something evaluating an attribute that takes the type TERMorCURIEorURI would work like this:
> 	 Does the value match the production for a term?  If so, evaluate it as a TERM (which might mean it gets thrown away) and stop.
> 	 Does the value match the production for a CURIE?  If so:
> 		 Is there a matching in scope prefix mapping?  Yes, then expand the CURIE.
> 		 No?  Treat it as an absolute URI
> 

But that is not what the text says, right? (Just checking my own interpretation.) What it says is process it as a URI which includes relative URI-s, too

Ivan

> In other words, in my mental model for this AND in my implementation, a relative URI would never get treated as valid because a relative URI doesn't have a prefix.  Remember, the ONLY reason we added this rule was to accommodate absolute URIs.  
> 
> Regardless, if you all want to try to support relative URIs as well... I guess that's okay, but I agree with others that there is not really a use case I can see and I think it makes processing more difficult, introduces new, interesting, and ugly edge cases, and will make document authoring even more error prone.
> 
> 
> On 5/17/2010 7:39 AM, Mark Birbeck wrote:
>> Hi Toby,
>> 
>>   
>> 
>>> This is precisely the specific problem that should force us to disallow
>>> relative URIs. If people think they can use relative URIs, they'll use
>>> things like datatype="foo.html", but that will be interpreted as a
>>> term, as "." is allowed in NCNames. The rules on when something is
>>> interpreted as a relative URI reference and when it's interpreted as a
>>> token would be confusing to authors.
>>>     
>>> 
>> Well...we actually already have the rule. If it's not a term, and it's
>> not a CURIE then by definition it's a URI  -- absolute, relative,
>> whatever.
>> 
>> I think that's actually quite straightforward.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Mark
>>   
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
> Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
> ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: 
> shane@aptest.com
> 
> 
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf







Received on Monday, 17 May 2010 14:56:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:19:47 UTC