> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-rdf-sparql-query-20050721/ does not > seem to define how the BASE IRI and a relative IRI are combined to > a IRI. In section 2.1 it says... The terms delimited by "<>" are IRI references [19]. They stand for IRIs, either directly, or relative to a base IRI. " Then in [19], i.e. RFC 3987, we find: 6.5. Relative IRI References Processing of relative IRI references against a base is handled straightforwardly; the algorithms of [RFC3986] can be applied directly, treating the characters additionally allowed in IRI references in the same way that unreserved characters are in URI references. I see that rfc3986 says Normalization of the base URI, as described in Sections 6.2.2 and 6.2.3, is optional. so yes, we need to say what to do with non-canonical base URIs. A test case seems in order... perhaps using the example there... eXAMPLE://a/./b/../b/%63/%7bfoo%7d > Please change the draft such that this is well-defined. Note > that the resolution algorithm in RFC 3986 is probably not suited > for this purpose since there are optional normalization steps that > would make this feature useless. Hmm... I don't think I understand what you mean. Please elaborate on which optional normailzation steps would make this feature useless, and how. > Depending on the algorithm, BASE > might not be a good name for the feature. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29EReceived on Friday, 22 July 2005 01:48:55 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:21 UTC