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

Re: [rdfa-api] IRI References

From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 19:17:21 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTinNOdRT5jNgOqoHTV2yE55+Aqt0Ve3rYVqPpGEC@mail.gmail.com>
To: "nathan@webr3.org" <nathan@webr3.org>
Cc: RDFA Working Group <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Yes, I would think so. Wording is pretty much a direct lift from RDFa
though, which has all of this in.

On Sunday, November 28, 2010, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
> 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 19:17:56 UTC

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