- From: Toby A Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:34:27 +0100
- To: RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, andy.seaborne@hp.com, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Manu Sporny wrote: > Hmm... that's a bit strange. Anybody know the thought process behind > that decision? For example, that would mean that this: > > http://example.org/ > and this > HTTP://example.org/ > > while being canonically the same, would fail in any sort of RDF-based > comparison? I imagine that it's to make things easier to implement. Especially given that the URIs used in RDF may well use URI schemes that had not even been envisaged when RDF was invented. Should all RDF processors need to know that tel:+441632790123 and tel:+44-1623-790123 are equivalent? Given the vast number of different URI schemes (see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URI_scheme>) with new schemes being standardised all the time, it would be impractical for RDF implementations to be required to recognise equivalent URIs. -- Toby A Inkster <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Thursday, 18 September 2008 21:35:44 UTC