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: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:09:08 +0100
Message-ID: <46289144.9040604@hpl.hp.com>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
CC: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>, semantic-web@w3.org, www-international@w3.org


If I have understood the disagreement here it is about what a processor
is and when the conversion discussed in XML Base actually happens.
>From the previous messages I have understood that the PER has (will
have?) clarified that the processor being discussed is one that is
actually doing a GET on the IRI, and that the base-uri property used
over the infoset is not a URI but an IRI.

The fact that the clarification is needed indicates that both readings
of the current spec are plausible. The RDF Test Cases include the
example that Dave previously pointed to, to indicate that RDF Core
impose the 'as late as possible' reading onto XML Base, at least for
RDF/XML (perhaps - I haven't followed all the links)

Jeremy


Sandro Hawke wrote:
> ...
>> 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

-- 
Hewlett-Packard Limited
registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Friday, 20 April 2007 10:09:31 GMT

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