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

RDF URIs - proposal

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 11:12:32 +0300
To: w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <200309191112.32263.jjc@hpl.hp.com>


Two proposals - (A) - basically required, and optionally (B) as well.

Also question for Martin - any guesses as to *when* IRI will get to RFC?


Proposal A) Propose that RDF concepts is changed to prohibit control 
characters in RDF URI References 

The proposal is illustrated by this textual change to:
6.4 RDF URI References
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-Graph-URIref

Replace:
[[
A URI reference within an RDF graph (an RDF URI reference) is a Unicode string 
[UNICODE] that would produce a valid URI ...
]]

with
[[
A URI reference within an RDF graph (an RDF URI reference) is a Unicode string 
[UNICODE] that 
+ does not contain any control characters ( #x00 - #x1F, #x7F-#x9F)
+ and would produce a valid URI ...
]]

Proposal B) Propose that concepts is changed to informatively permit 
implementations to issue a warning for the use of RDF URI references not 
conforming to any draft of IRI 

The proposal is illustrated by this textual change to:
6.4 RDF URI References
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-Graph-URIref

Add a new note (informative) immediatly after the current note about XML 
Namespaces 1.1, as follows:
[[
Note: this section anticipates an RFC on Internationalized Resource 
Identifiers. Implementations may issue warnings concerning the use
of RDF URI References that do not conform with [IRI draft] or its 
successors.
]]

(We could possibly delete the XML Namespaces 1.1 note, as well - my preference 
is not)

====

(A) was simply a mistake. No version of IRIs or proto-IRIs has allowed control 
characters - e.g. XLink text prohibitis them because they are prohbitied in 
XML 1.0, and hence do not need to be explicitly prohibited.
Since RDF concepts does not assume an XML context, we need to be explicit.

(B) is trying to steer between various problems and concerns:
As far as I understand
- the RDF Core WG does not want to guess the future
- hence conforming with previous proto-IRI text is our preference
- the RDF Core WG cannot normatively depend on a draft.
- the RDF Core WG does not see it as its role to draft new text concerning 
generic I18N issues, but wishes to take best practice from elsewhere

yet
- we have user feedback agreeing with the feedback to the I18N group that 
specifically allowing spaces is unwise.
- we wish to minimize the transition cost of adopting IRI when it is an RFC


Jeremy
Received on Friday, 19 September 2003 05:15:28 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Friday, 19 September 2003 05:15:42 EDT