W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > August 2015

Re: RDF's relative IRI resolution is ambiguous

From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 11:43:55 -0400
To: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
Cc: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, RDF Comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20150827154354.GG12886@w3.org>
* Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be> [2015-08-27 17:19+0200]
> > when implementing I understood "the basic algorithm” to be a *description* of what I would find in 5.2, not a named algorithm contained somewhere within section 5.2.
> That could indeed be the case.
> For me, the most confusing part in "using only the basic algorithm in section 5.2"
> is the word "only": we should do "only" that as opposed to also doing what else?

The algorithm in <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-5.2.2>
references a function to remove_dot_segments
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-5.2.4>. The "only" text
(first written in SPARQL 1.0) was intended to say that the only
permissible normalization was that described in 5.2. Don't go case
folding, appending default port nunbers, unescaping unnecessary
%-encoded sequences, or any of the other desperate measures described
in section 6.  Normalization and Comparison.

> Best,
> Ruben


office: +1.617.599.3509
mobile: +

Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.

There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout
which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.
Received on Thursday, 27 August 2015 15:44:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:59:49 UTC