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

Re: % in URIs

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2003 11:41:26 +0100
Message-ID: <3F55C556.1090403@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>



Jeremy Carroll wrote:

[...]

>  >
>  > I think PFPS is right, and that ", the percent sign (%)" should be
>  > deleted from the above paragraph
> 
> I tried to take the text from the usual suspects and minimize the 
> divergence between different W3C specs.
> 
> cf in particular
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-charmod-20030822/#sec-URIs
> 
> which links to
> http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-V10-2e-errata#E26
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xlink/#link-locators
> http://www.w3.org/International/2002/draft-duerst-iri-00.txt
> 
> None of these %-escape %.

I should have read the thing more carefully :(

What our specs says is:

let URIREF = the set of URIREF's defined according to RFC2396 modified 
by RFC 2732

then RDFURIREF = {x : encoding(x) memberof URIREF}

for the encoding defined in the spec which excludes encoding '%'.

test case: is http://example.org/foo%bar a member of RDFURIREF.  Answer: 
NO because http://example.org/foo%bar is not a member of URIREF.

I now see why it is the way it is (I think).

jjc, this was originally raised by PFPS

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0282.html

and I brought it up in your absence.  Do you think you could resond to him?

Brian

> 
> I believe that w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org and uri@w3.org may be appropriate 
> forums for discussion of this issue.
> 
> I am unwilling to make a change before the 5th September publication.
> Nor would I be happy with a change that is opposed by a consensus in the 
> above forums.
> 
> I am not yet convinced that this materially affects RDF since we *never* 
> require the escaping to actually be performed, it is merely a 
> theoretical exercise that defines a set of strings. I believe that the 
> set of strings is the same whether or not % is itself escaped.
> 
> Jeremy
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2003 06:46:47 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:59:54 EDT