W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > July to September 2001

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

From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 09:52:08 -0500
Message-Id: <200108051454.f75EssR09126@theinfo.org>
Cc: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
To: Devon Smith <devon@taller.pscl.cwru.edu>

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/> ]
Received on Sunday, 5 August 2001 10:52:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:28 GMT