W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2002

Re: xmlbase error1

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 23:06:31 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020401230302.00a689f0@joy.songbird.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
I came to a different conclusion on reading RFC 2396.  I can see some 
justification for either.

My concern, then, is that we end up specifying something that is not 
obvious on reading the relevant primary specification (RFC 2396).  I don't 
see it's especially important -- maybe it's better to duck this particular 
issue?  Otherwise, I think we should flag any decision clearly so that 
implementers don't overlook it.

#g
--

At 01:36 PM 3/29/02 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote:
>On Fri, 2002-03-29 at 12:18, Dave Beckett wrote:
>[...]
> > We should not be testing for something with an undefined answer!
>
>My considered opinion is that the answer is defined by RFC 2396;
>
>  "relfile" relative to mailto:foo@bar is mailto:relfile.
>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20020225-f2f/irclog-2002-02-26.html#T09-02-13
>
>I regret that I cannot write a more detailed response,
>nor investigate the state of this matter (whether
>the WG has already decided on it or not) without
>putting my other obligations at risk for the
>next week or so.
>
>--
>Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Monday, 1 April 2002 17:19:55 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:47:20 EDT