- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 10:00:39 +0000
- To: public-linked-json@w3.org
On 16/01/13 01:27, Manu Sporny wrote: > The writing is on the wall. I suggest that the RDF WG move toward the > URL terminology. The writing is on the wall ... but the predictive text algorithm is still running. That is what the RDF-WG tried to do last time. It tried to align "RDF URI reference" with what was emerging as IRIs. And that's why it allowed spaces. But the IRI work changed course. (I was no there at the time.) Let's balance where things might be going with the possibility they go somewhere else. This URL spec isn't even finished yet and the text is rough. Even a quick scan produced: [[ Sec 5: URL A URL is either a relative URL or an absolute URL. Either form can be followed by a fragment. ]] So, as currently written (and it's only draft text), an absolute URL does not have a fragment. Possibly intentional, possibly not. From an HTTP perspective fragments are not relevant. [[ 5.1 A URL must be either a relative URL or an absolute URL, optionally followed by "#" and a fragment. ]] Is "#" part of the fragment or not? (answer from the parsing algorithm is "not") I would have thought JSON-LD needs a term that includes the fragment and the #. Andy
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2013 10:01:15 UTC