W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > February 2011

Re: ISSUE-84 (Cool URIs and HTTPRange-14): The W3C TAG has asked us to mention that the use of fragment identifiers can be problematic [LC Comment - RDFa Core 1.1]

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 11:45:41 +0100
Cc: RDFa Working Group WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>, Shane P McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Message-Id: <2022A7E0-4B50-407D-B5FE-4D8D6CD73F53@w3.org>
To: nathan@webr3.org

On Feb 8, 2011, at 11:39 , Nathan wrote:

> agree, good thinking re @vocab too!
> 
> We could define Absolute-URI pointing to [1]
> 
>  absolute-URI  = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ]
> 
> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-4.3
> 
> We actually may have an issue around this, that may be worth raising (if you agree I can raise it) - because currently we use the phrase "AbsURI" (e.g. TERMorCURIEorAbsURI) through the spec to refer to a "URI" (not an absolute uri), and now it seems need to define a real AbsURI.
> 

Let us wait for Shane on this before raising a formal issue. It may be an editorial wizzardy that he can take care of in less time than you need to formally raise a separate issue:-)

Ivan


> I'd be happy to detail the issue and run through the spec pointing to the areas where things are ambiguous, with proposed text to clear up the issue.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Nathan
> 
> Ivan Herman wrote:
>> I would agree with this restriction. @profile values should indeed be absolute URI-s, and I have not found any explicit text in the document that says so. I guess this should be added to, eg, section 9.
>> I would not care too much whether the @profile has a fragment or not, as long as it is clear that the fragments are, essentially, stripped by the HTTP rules.
>> I would actually add the same restriction to @vocab.
>> On Feb 8, 2011, at 11:18 , Nathan wrote:
>>> Ivan Herman wrote:
>>>> There may be one more additional feature we may want to add to the text, beyond what the TAG might give us: avoid using fragid-s in profile URI-s. That is the only URI that an RDFa processor will dereference, and two different URI-s differing by a fragid only will return the same graph. On the other hand, using two different URI-s for the same graph my make the local caching process inefficient (unless clients would strip the fragid part before caching but I would not expect them to do that...)
>>> Hmm, should we be clarifying the definition of @profile to accept a whitespace separated list of absolute-URIs (never relative, never with fragment) to avoid /some/ unexpected behaviour?
>>> 
>>> * I say some, because people could still use "mailto:bob@example.org", but I figure we shouldn't cater for people who like to do things like that!
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> Nathan
>>> 
>>>>>>> ISSUE-84
>> ----
>> 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
> 
> 


----
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 Tuesday, 8 February 2011 10:45:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:19:51 UTC