Re: [Fwd: rdfms-literals-as-resources]

On Friday, August 3, 2001, at 03:33  PM, Brian McBride wrote:

>> Let me first say that conceptually, i like the idea of literals being
>> resources, mostly because i think one should be allowed to make
>> assertions about literals. However, the data: scheme is an 
>> unacceptable
>> solution to the problem of how to assign a URI to a string of
>> characters. The length limit, recognized by the RFC, is a legitimate
>> concern for implementors. Another concern is how strings encoded
>> in UTF-8, UTF-16 and other non-ascii, non-latin encodings would be
>> dealt with.
>
> I was unaware of a length restriction on URI's.  Is there one?

Devon, in RFC2396 (the URI RFC) I see no mention of "length" or 
"size". Some HTTP implementations have a limit on the size of 
URIs that they can handle, but I don't think that's relevant 
since we're specifying the behavior of new, RDF processors.

Is there something I'm missing? Can you please point me to this 
length limit?

Thanks,
--
[ "Aaron Swartz" ; <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ; <http://www.aaronsw.com/> ]