- From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 03:12:53 -0400
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
- Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, public-rdf-comments Comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>, Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org>, Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
* Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com> [2012-08-10 15:03-0700] > On 8/8/2012 4:01 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > >1. RDF 2004 is the only standard on the planet that allows spaces > >in URIs/IRIs > > I believe that the plural in spaces is crucial in making that > sentence true ... > The XML Schema Datatypes version 1.0 anyURI I believe allows spaces > [1], but it's white space handling rules will replace multiple > spaces with a single space. > > So I believe > > <http://www.example.org/Two Spaces> > conforms with RDF 2004 but not XML Schema 1.0 > and > <http://www.example.org/One Space> > conforms with both .... This implies that RDF terms generated from XML (say via XSLT) will be different depending on whether the white space rules have been applied (e.g. by validation). How about if we say that RDF IRIs can't have any ajoining spaces and register a URL schema with a leading space for testing? +1 to current definition, Jeremy's characteristically clever detective work not-withstanding. > Both specifications had history against them - the IRI spec was much > anticipated and pretty late - and people had to get on with the job > > Hmmm, java.net.URI is from the same era, and has similar issues I think. > > Checking out the XML Schema ref [1], I see there is a second spec - > which really does seem to have very similar rules to RDF 2004, XLink > [2]. > I think one > > Jeremy > > [1] > http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-2-20041028/#anyURI > [2] > http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xlink-20010627/#link-locators > -- -ericP
Received on Saturday, 11 August 2012 07:13:30 UTC