W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > October 2003

test xmlbase/test012

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 09:52:38 +0100
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <200310290952.38620.jjc@hpl.hp.com>

See
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003OctDec/0047.html

I suggest we modify the comment in the test case as follows:

See

http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/xmlbase/test012

OLD
[[
  Description: Example of relative uri with too many ..'s in path.
  Note: RFC 2396 appears to permit implementations that discard
        excess .. components, "compensating for obvious author
        errors".
        Such behaviour is not correct for RDF/XML.
  Author: Jeremy Carroll (jjc@hpl.hp.com)
]]

NEW
[[
  Description: Example of relative uri with too many ..'s in path.
  Note: The behavior recommended in the forthcoming revision 
    of RFC 2396 may be different from in RFC 2396, hence  
    document authors are advised to avoid such relative URIs.
  Note: RFC 2396 appears to permit implementations that discard
        excess .. components, "compensating for obvious author
        errors".
        To avoid ambiguity RDF/XML requires that no such compensation
        is performed.
  Author: Jeremy Carroll (jjc@hpl.hp.com)
]]

And then the following response ...

<<<
Thank you for your comment.

We were unaware of this planned changes to RFC 2396.
We have modified the comment in the test case to read:
[[
  ..
]]

In answer to your question: RDF/XML and RDF Concepts depend normatively on RFC 
2396. RFC 2396bis has not yet completed its standardization.
Thus the test case is correct.
>>>

Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 29 October 2003 03:53:03 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 29 October 2003 03:53:09 EST