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

Re: XML Base

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:07:45 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020322130139.03a23060@joy.songbird.com>
To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 10:45 AM 3/22/02 +0000, Dave Beckett wrote:
>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 think this is an error:  that a relative URI cannot be resolved with 
respect to a mailto: URI.

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt, Section 5 (final 2 paragraphs):
[[[
    It is not necessary for all URI within a given scheme to be
    restricted to the <hier_part> syntax, since the hierarchical
    properties of that syntax are only necessary when relative URI are
    used within a particular document.  Documents can only make use of
    relative URI when their base URI fits within the <hier_part> syntax.
    It is assumed that any document which contains a relative reference
    will also have a base URI that obeys the syntax.  In other words,
    relative URI cannot be used within a document that has an unsuitable
    base URI.

    Some URI schemes do not allow a hierarchical syntax matching the
    <hier_part> syntax, and thus cannot use relative references.
]]]

Noting some following discussion in the list, I fail to see what harm or 
difficulty is incurred by saying now that this is an error.

I also don't think this is really an architectural issue, and not part of 
what TAG is discussing.  If I'm wrong, and TAG subsequently say that 
mailto:-relative references are OK, then that can be adopted (harmlessly, 
IMO) by an erratum.

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Friday, 22 March 2002 08:14:13 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:46:21 EDT