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

xml:base feedback from URI mail list

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 13:29:03 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020517110836.02720188@15.144.25.13>
To: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Summary:  the URI folks:

   o agree that we can turn frag id's into absolute uri's
   o do not agree that we can use xml:base in that calculation
   o have suggested the definition of a uri scheme to represent the current 
xml:base value

--

On Wed 10th April, Jeremy completed his action to send a message [1] to the 
URI list with our proposed test cases and results for the interpretations 
of URI's within the scope of an xml:base.

There was some discussion of the application of xml:base to same document 
references.

Al Gilman has replied [2]:

[[
So for RDF to apply the semantic constraint that a #fragment reference is 
equivalent to a given absolute URI -- within a representation which belongs 
to a type which by its type definition is bound to the constraints of the 
RDF model -- is entirely within the purview of the specification of the RDF 
model and the languages in which it is represented.
]]

This view, I think, would give us license to translate a fragment id only 
uri reference into an absolute uri.

Paul Grosso has replied [3]:

[[
...  It is important that RDF and everyone
else realize that use of XML Base requires compliance with RFC 2396 which
requires that relative URI references consisting of just the fragment id
ignore any base URI and instead always refer to a fragment id within the
current document.
]]

which says, we can't take into account xml:base in this calculation.

Both Al and Paul have suggested this is an architectural issue and should 
be taken to the tag.

Larry Massiner has suggested defining some new syntax, e.g. a new pseudo 
prefix to represent the current effective base URI, e.g. base:#foo.  He has 
stated that there is no chance of getting a modification in to the proposed 
update of RFC 2396 to deal with this problem, but suggested that a new 
draft could be written [4].

Martin Deurst has pointed out (in a chat at WWW 2002) that RDF may be 
embedded in other documents, e.g. HTML, or XML.  The mime types of such 
documents will not be the RDF mime type, so any rdf specific processing of 
fragments in such document will not apply.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2002Apr/0025.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2002Apr/0042.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2002Apr/0035.html
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2002May/0012.html
Received on Friday, 17 May 2002 08:32:12 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:48:14 EDT