- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:07:45 +0000
- 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 UTC