W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > April to June 2007

Re: xml:base (was Re: IRI meets RDF meets HTTP redirect)

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:37:49 -0400
To: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, semantic-web@w3.org, www-international@w3.org
Message-Id: <20070419183829.7CA084EF6D@homer.w3.org>


...
> XML Base, however, does not use the notion of IRI.  An implementation
> of XML Base must behave as if it converted the xml:base attribute
> value to a URI by expanding a subset of the %-escapes, and then 
> did resolution in accordance with RFC 3986 (not 3987).
...

I don't think I agree, but maybe I misunderstand.   Here's a first pass
at a test case:

=========================== Input ==============================
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
	 xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"
         xml:base="http://www.w3.org/International/articles/idn-and-iri/JPǼƦ/Ǽ">
  <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/">
    <foaf:likes rdf:resource="" />
  </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
================================================================

** Option 1:

This is perfectly decent XML.  It parses to this N-Triple:

   <http://www.w3.org/> <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/likes> <http://www.w3.org/International/articles/idn-and-iri/JPǼƦ/Ǽ>.

I'm happy with this option, and I understood Jeremy and Chris to be as
well.  FWIW, the W3C RDF validator (using Jeremy's parser) does this.

** Option 2:

This input is not well formed XML.

...  Are there any other options?  John, can you explain your
interpretation in these terms?   

      -- Sandro
Received on Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:38:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 19:17:13 GMT