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

RE: escaping % in RDF URI references

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 12:45:25 +0200
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, <w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BHEGLCKMOHGLGNOKPGHDEEPNCBAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>


(moved from the comments list)

Peter suggests following the IRI wording from "Namespaces in XML 1.1" rather
than the current wording in concepts.

This is essentially editorial, although Peter raises a substantive issue to
do with control characters.

Personally my preference would be to follow Martin Durst's advice ... [here
at least :) ].

Jeremy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider [mailto:pfps@research.bell-labs.com]
> Sent: 09 September 2003 12:15
> To: jjc@hpl.hp.com
> Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org; w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Re: escaping % in RDF URI references
>
>
> My reading on this issue indicates that it is a mess.
>
> My guess is that the intent is to make RDF URI references be absolute IRIs
> with optional fragment identifiers.  This intent is, however, almost
> impossible to decipher, even with the ``compatability with IRI'' note.
>
> The wording in the ``Namespaces in XML 1.1'' document is *much*
> preferable.  It lays out the intent, gives reasons why the intent cannot
> be specified with just a pointer, provides a temporary solution, and
> finally gives a way towards a permanent solution.
>
> Why isn't the same route taken in RDF concepts?  I don't view the current
> test in RDF Concepts as acceptable.
>
> peter
>
> PS:  It appears to me that the translation in RDF Concepts is different
> from the translation in Namespaces in XML 1.1.  In particular,
> RDF concepts
> allows control characters whereas Namespaces in XML 1.1 does not.
>
>
> From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
> Subject: Re: escaping % in RDF URI references
> Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 17:52:44 +0300
>
> >
> > > It appears to me that RDF Concepts does not require % to be
> %-escaped in
> > > RDF URI references (Section 6.4).  Surely this is a bug.
> >
> > Hi Peter
> >
> > In response to your message
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0282
> >
> > The requirement to not escape % is derived from the the other
> specifications
> > from which the text you mention is taken.
> >
> > See,
> >
> > 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
> >
> > The grammar in
> > http://www.w3.org/International/2002/draft-duerst-iri-00.txt
> >
> > is perhaps the most useful, this indicates that % is only
> allowed in IRIs when
> > part of an escape sequence, and not otherwise.
> >
> > Thus
> >
> > <rdf:RDF>
> >   <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.org/bar%foo">
> >     <eg:prop>val</eg:prop>
> >   </rdf:Description>
> > </rdf:RDF>
> >
> > is not legal, whereas
> >
> > <rdf:RDF>
> >   <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.org/foo%bar">
> >     <eg:prop>val</eg:prop>
> >   </rdf:Description>
> > </rdf:RDF>
> >
> > is legal (but does not represent an IRI in UTF-8 encoding).
> >
> > In a discussion of your comment, the RDF Core WG was inclined
> to add one or
> > more test cases (e.g. these two) and make no other changes.
> > Would that satisfy you? If so I will formally propose these
> tests and get back
> > to you once they have been added to the RDF test suite.
> >
> > If you believe that the design choice is fundamentally mistaken
> I believe that
> > it would be more effective to take that up with the IRI
> editors, perhaps on
> > uri@w3.org or w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org
> >
> > Jeremy
> >
> >
> >
>
Received on Tuesday, 9 September 2003 08:24:48 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tuesday, 9 September 2003 08:24:52 EDT