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: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 11:16:11 +0000
Message-ID: <4D5125FB.4090806@webr3.org>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: RDFa Working Group WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Ivan Herman wrote:
> On Feb 8, 2011, at 11:59 , Nathan wrote:
> 
>> Ivan Herman wrote:
>>> I would agree with this restriction. @profile values should indeed be absolute URI-s
>>> ...
>>> I would actually add the same restriction to @vocab.
>> Ack we can't, @vocab needs to consider fragments, such as:
>>
>> <div vocab="http://example.org/foo#">
>>   <p property="bar"> ..
>>
> 
> Isn't that an absolute URI? What I meant is that a @vocab="#me" would be a problem. I do not care, in this context, of a fragment in the URI...

nope,

   URI  = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ] [ "#" fragment ]

   absolute-URI  = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ]

   relative-ref  = relative-part [ "?" query ] [ "#" fragment ]

   URI-reference = URI / relative-ref

http://example.org/vocab# == URI
http://example.org/profile == absolute-URI
#me == relative-ref

and all are URI-reference(s).

Thanks for asking, just realised I the text I've literally /just/ 
proposed needs further clarified with the above.

Best,

Nathan
Received on Tuesday, 8 February 2011 11:18:02 UTC

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