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

Re: RDF URIs - proposal

From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 11:22:40 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030922112201.0239b218@127.0.0.1>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

Insofar as I understand the issues, both A and B work for me.

#g
--

At 11:12 19/09/03 +0300, 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

------------
Graham Klyne
GK@NineByNine.org
Received on Monday, 22 September 2003 08:35:09 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Monday, 22 September 2003 08:35:20 EDT