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

RE: XML Base

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 11:14:46 -0000
To: "Dave Beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: "w3c-rdfcore-wg" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDOEHKCDAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Beckett [mailto:dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk]
> Sent: 22 March 2002 10:45
> To: Jeremy Carroll
> Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg
> Subject: Re: XML Base
> >>>Jeremy Carroll said:
> <snip/>
> > I am arguing a catch 22, if you want to delete these, it is because some
> > people disagree with them, which is why we need them. I am happy with
> > deleting the ones that nobody disagrees with.
> <snip/>
> The only one that wasn't approved was test017/error001 and that is
> because I think the algorithm for resolving the URI was wrong in the
> proposed test017.nt
> I think resolving
>   base URI "mailto:Jeremy_Carroll@hp.com"
>   with URI "relfile"
> will give
>   URI "mailto:relfile"
> not
>   URI "mailto:/refile"
> because mailto is a non-hierachical URI scheme (does not start
> mailto:/ so can be detected by apps).

I agree that test017 is wrong. Your analysis is better than mine was.

However I have reverted back to it being an error. (error001).

The history from my point of view is:

+ I suggested it was an error because of non-hierarchical URI
+ The wg asked me to reconsider
+ I pointed to text in RFC 2396 that supported my position
+ DaveB indicated implementation difficulty in distinguishing hierarchical
and non-hierarchical schemes
+ I agreed with DaveB and suggested test017 as resolving that
+ Graham pointed out that RFC 2396 gives an easy syntactic distinction
between hierarchical and non-hierarchical schemes (is the first : followed
by /?)
+ I agreed with Graham and reverted to regarding this case as an error

Meanwhile ...

+ DaveB expressed concern that we were doing something that was not our job
+ I expressed limited agreement
+ TAG discussion has started up about URIs
+ Brian suggested deleting the relevant test cases
+ I identified the test cases, and mildly opposed deleting them


I think an outcome in which we do not *need* to provide test cases for URI
resolution is the ideal.
At least some of the test cases I posted are unclear, and hence require

Brian's proposal may result in the clarity that we need without us stepping
beyond our competence.

Received on Friday, 22 March 2002 06:16:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:56 UTC