W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > September 2014

Re: HTML and URI References compatability conserns

From: Austin William Wright <aaa@bzfx.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 16:27:17 -0700
Message-ID: <CANkuk-WCqm-BNzfzV8Y-_-YEB-8rouyRjUQV8CpFJZZfW5JUAA@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Sheets <sheets@alum.mit.edu>
Cc: Damian Steer <pldms@mac.com>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Since I maintain URI and IRI libraries, and numerous programs that use URIs
for stating relationships (JSON Schema, RDF Interfaces, Turtle parser, and
more), I'm interested in getting involved, pending some questions about the
purpose of the proposed Community Group. Certainly there's been a lot of
drama, since I sent this message, on public-webapps, www-tag,
and public-w3process about the fork of the "URL" document. Will a Community
Group be able to positively impact the issue?

Will we be able to shed light on the Semantic Web uses of the URI, IRI, and
URI Reference? (The current documents seem to think that only Web browsers
consume URIs.)

Most importantly, I don't think it's necessary -- or even normatively
possible -- to re-define how to parse URIs in HTML or any other spec. This
is normatively done _only_ by RFC 3986 or a published successor that
obsoletes it.

I would like to see a "URI/IRI API" that correctly uses the RFC3986/3987
terminology. Would publishing an ECMAScript API be in scope?

And as mentioned earlier, I'm interested in research into current
implementation bugs of user agents and non-Web applications that consume
IRIs, and if there's a way to fix them that's not (net) harmful. This is
also one of the intended purposes, correct? For instance, there could
possibly be a document describing how to fix invalid URI References, if
that is acceptable (i.e. no "URI Strict Mode").

Generally, the goal is to work all the current issues of interoperability
between Working Groups out? Wouldn't e.g. appsawg at the IETF, or another
WG that deals with the URI, also be suited for this purpose?

Thanks,

Austin.

On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 12:58 PM, David Sheets <sheets@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Damian Steer <pldms@mac.com> wrote:
> > On 18/08/14 12:54, Austin William Wright wrote:
> >> As the maintainer of a library that converts and parses URIs and IRIs,
> >> as well as many Semantic Web-related libraries that use it, I was
> >> reading through the HTML draft, and it appears that the core ingredient
> >> of RDF and Semantic Web--the URI [1] and IRI [2]--is not, in current
> >> draft, normatively referenced from its key hypertext technology, HTML
> [3].
> >
> > For the lazy, what is being referenced is:
> >
> > <http://url.spec.whatwg.org/>
> >
> > Hmm.
>
> I have just proposed a community group to do this properly. Please
> consider supporting it and beginning the discussion of formal
> specification of URI:
> <http://www.w3.org/community/groups/proposed/#urispec>.
>
> Thanks,
>
> David Sheets
>
> > Damian
> >
>
>
Received on Thursday, 11 September 2014 23:27:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:42:53 UTC