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

Re: XML Base - discussion + test cases

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 14:06:36 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 11:06 AM 2/19/02 +0000, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>Well, I bet everyone hoped that xml:base was over!
>It isn't.
>Summary issues:
>#1: (raised by Stuart Williams of the TAG).
>    RFC2396 refers to same document references.
>    rdf:ID is a same document reference.
>    A close reading of the RFC suggests that xml:base *does not*
>    apply to same document references.
>    I do not believe that this was the intent of the WG, and have
>    used a different algorithm (that in ARP) which *does* apply
>    xml:base to same document references.

Noting that rdf:ID is _not_ an XML ID-type attribute, can't we define 
rdf:ID not to be a same-document reference in the sense of RFC 2396?  Then 
it can be defined as generating a URI relative to the current xml:base?

>#2: (first raised as an ARP defect, solved by
>    There is a minor bug in the algorithm of RFC 2396 which
>    I explicitly correct. I follow Mark Birbeck:

Seems reasonable.

>#3: It is possible to construct an RDF/XML document which uses
>     the same ID to represent two different URIs. I allow this.

Seems reasonable.

>#4: The XML Base spec and RFC 2396 are silent about using a
>     URI of non-generic syntax (e.g. a mailto or a urn) as the base.
>     I think this is broken and have created test cases showing that.

I think I agree.  I think one could conceivably follow RFC2396 to allow 
combination of a base URI scheme with an opaque_part path, but I can't see 
why that might be useful.


Graham Klyne                    MIMEsweeper Group
Strategic Research              <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2002 09:37:34 UTC

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