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

Re: URIs vs. URIviews (was: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-02-15)

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 16:38:26 -0600
Message-Id: <p05101403b8972e90f19f@[]>
To: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>On 2002-02-18 3:20 AM, "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>>>  Of course! I don't think anyone disagrees with that. The issue at hand is
>>>  whether we can define it as naming an abstract resource. See my message
>>>  "URIs vs. URIviews (core issue)".
>>  Hmmm, that seems like a question about the nature of resources and what
>>  names them.  These are questions we have kicked to the tag.
>No, the issue is what URI-references name. I think it's pretty unambiguously

I very much doubt it.  Everything Ive read about what URI-references 
name or mean has been almost impenetrably murky and so ambiguous as 
to be meaningless, if taken literally.

>  and I've seen Roy Fielding, Al Gilman, and many others say the same
>thing. I guess we could take it to the TAG if we wanted to be absolutely
>sure, but I'm not sure how they can say anything different than what the
>spec says.

RFC2396 seems to be pretty clear that frags, while not technically 
part of the URI, are expected to be used with URIs (why else exclude 
'#' from the URI BNF ?.)  I really do not understand what the problem 
is here, from reading RFC2396. It says quite clearly that urirefs CAN 
contain fragIds.
I would also observe that all the web browsers I use seem to be able 
to handle fragIds without any problems.

>>  Have I understood you correctly?  You are arguing, not that we should
>>  answer this question, but that we should discourage folks from using uri's
>>  with frag id's until this has been cleaned up?
>I think the question is answered (feel free to look at the text in RFC2396
>and decide for yourself).

That text certainly does not say that such use is discouraged or 
deprecated. To me it gives a very strong impression in the other 
direction, eg section 4.3
"   A URI reference is typically parsed according to the four main
    components and fragment identifier in order to determine what
    components are present and whether the reference is relative or
    absolute. "
which seems to assume that parsing a URI reference should take into 
account any fragIds, rather than ignore them.

>  But yes, I think we should discourage their use as
>a way to stop things from getting worse.

I still fail to follow exactly in what way the situation is bad here.


IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Monday, 18 February 2002 17:38:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:55 UTC