- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 19:37:29 -0300
- To: <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
- Cc: "'David Booth'" <david@dbooth.org>
On Sunday, May 26, 2013 7:17 PM, David Booth wrote: > > The syntax has > > > > @base IRIREF . > > > > and the @base is no different to other URIs - it is subject to URI > > resolution. > > But I don't see anything there that explicitly requires IRIREF to be an > absolute-IRI as defined in RFC3987. Other parts of the Turtle syntax > (such as the @prefix production) also use the IRIREF syntax production > without requiring it to be an absolute-IRI. That's why it isn't clear > that in the case of @base it must be an absolute-IRI. It can be a relative IRI as well. In that case it gets resolved against the currently active base IRI. > > @base <relURI> . > > > > is also legal as is > > > > @base <../sibling> . > > > > which might be occasionally useful. > > Huh? Are you saying that @base can recursively specify the base URI > using a *relative* URI? Then there would have to be a base URI of the > @base URI? Yes, not recursively though but sequentially. > I'm very surprised to hear you say that a relative @base URI would be > legal. I don't think that should be allowed. That seems too > mysterious and error prone to me. HTML allows that as well e.g. > That would require a relative URI specified in > @base to be resolved using "Reference Resolution", which is specified > in > section 5 of RFC 3986. But the result of "Reference Resolution" is "a > string matching the <URI> syntax rule of Section 3", and the <URI> > production *allows* a fragment identifier. And why should that be a problem? > I think it would be better to align directly with SPARQL and RFC 3986 > and RFC 3987 by explicitly requiring @base to specify an absolute-IRI. It is aligned with the two RFCs. There might be a case where you can't resolve a relative @base as the document itself has no IRI but that's the same problem as not being able to resolve relative IRIs anywhere else in such a document. -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Sunday, 26 May 2013 22:38:02 UTC