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

Re: [rdfa-api] IRI References

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 18:05:26 +0000
Message-ID: <4CF299E6.4030603@webr3.org>
To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
CC: RDFA Working Group <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Cheers Mark,

Thus I guess we'll be needing some base functionality and notes about 
resolving relative references in there (?)

Best,

Nathan

Mark Birbeck wrote:
> Hi Nathan,
> 
> RDF only uses IRIs, that's true, but RDF *serialisations* generally
> use IRI references.
> 
> Note that an 'IRI reference' is not just a relative IRI as I think you
> are implying -- they can also be absolute. That's why 'IRI reference'
> is usually used in specs where you want to allow both relative /and/
> absolute paths. In those situations using the definition for 'IRI'
> wouldn't work, because that would then require a scheme and a path,
> ruling out relative IRIs.
> 
> I think it's important to allow relative IRIs in the API. Obviously
> they have to be converted to absolute IRIs in order to obtain RDF, but
> as with RDF serialisations they're an important and useful shortcut
> for programmers.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mark
> 
> On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Throughout the API documentation, it references "IRI References", however to
>> the best of my knowledge the API, and RDF uses only "IRI"s, and in fact IRI
>> References (../foo) aren't used at all.
>>
>>  IRI = scheme ":" ihier-part [ "?" iquery ] [ "#" ifragment ]
>>
>> Correct? or?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Nathan
>>
>>
> 
> 
Received on Sunday, 28 November 2010 18:06:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:19:50 UTC