W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > January to March 2006

Re: question about IRI spec

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 18:13:24 +0000
Message-ID: <43C3F944.8010709@hpl.hp.com>
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
CC: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "www-international@w3.org" <www-international@w3.org>, public-iri@w3.org

I think you mint the fragment.

Noting %41 is a percent escape sequence that is legal but inappropriate 
for minting, then:

http://example.org/foo#         does not have the relevant warning
#toto%41                        does
http://example.org/foo#toto%41  does
#toto                           does not
http://example.org/foo%41       does
http://example.org/foo%41#toto  does

Examination of the relative reference and the base URI and the resolved 
URI allow one to see where the problem occurred.

Ditto for say NFKC.


Chris Lilley wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 10, 2006, 4:14:06 PM, Jeremy wrote:
> JC> I think in both RFC 3987 and RFC 3986 there are three effective levels 
> JC> of instruction: MUST force, SHOULD force, and something I am calling 
> JC> minting force (i.e. applied on generation not receipt).
> A meta-question - does the concatenation of a URI with a fragment to
> make a new URI constitute minting?
> In RFC 2396, the fragment was not part of the URI so in theory no new
> URI was generated.
> In RFC 3986 and thus RFC 3987, the fragment is part of the URI.
> So, if http://example.org/foo (or http://example.net/foo# ) already
> exist, does concatenation to produce http://example.org/foo#toto (or
> http://example.net/foo#toto ) constitute minting a new URI/IRI or is it
> re-using an existing one?
Received on Tuesday, 10 January 2006 18:13:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:04:23 UTC