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

Re: RDF URIs - proposal

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 08:14:58 -0500
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Cc: w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1063977297.23395.22.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

Yea and verily.

Both A and B.

On Fri, 2003-09-19 at 03:12, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 19 September 2003 09:14:59 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Friday, 19 September 2003 09:15:05 EDT