W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > July to September 2003

RE: escaping % in RDF URI references

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:11:14 +0200
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BHEGLCKMOHGLGNOKPGHDAEBKCCAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>


Peter,

one or two factual points, otherwise, no real change - and we seem to be in
a similar position to the NFC where you see editorial improvements as in
order, and I am not inclined to make them.

The WG while not formally deciding on editorial matters, has, so far, been
supportive of my judgement.


> I find the relevant section of RDF Concepts continues to be almost
> impossible to understand.  I just spend yet another 15 minutes trying to
> understand it, and have come to the tentative conclusion that the section
> is now consistent with XML Namespaces, but inconsistent with the IRI
> draft.   The divergence has to do with the treatment of the space
> character, which it appears to me is allowed in XML Namespaces but not in
> the IRI draft.  This means that the third note in the section is not
> correct.

The IRI text in namespaces is based on an earlier draft of the IRI
proto-RFC. Since the IRI draft has changed, it is impossible to conform with
both.

The text that we have is taken from recommendations such as XLink, and
modified to fit our requirements. While this has not resulted in text of the
highest readability, it does make the intent clear that we are *not* trying
to break new ground here.

The third note is intended to have a similar force to the comment in
namespaces 1.1 which goes:
[[
Users defining namespaces are advised to restrict namespace names to URIs
until software supporting IRIs is in common use.

For a more general definition and discussion of IRIs see [IRI draft] (work
in progress).
]]
i.e. it is informative. Software may behave slightly differently as a result
of the third note (i.e. issue additional diagnostics, which may be stricter
than is normatively required). Despite this the normative requirement is
clear, and aligns with previous W3C recommendations, as well as the XML
Namespaces 1.1 Candidate Rec.

I hope we can agree to differ, rather than merely disagree.


Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 25 September 2003 07:12:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:32 GMT