- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 10:09:26 -0600
- To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, Steven Pemberton <Steven.Pemberton@cwi.nl>
On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 10:05 -0600, Shane McCarron wrote: > > Dan Connolly wrote: > > No, it doesn't. See section 6.4 RDF URI References > > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-Graph-URIref > > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#dfn-URI-reference > > > > Note that the 2004 RDF specs use "URI reference" in order to > > include #fragments, which were not part of URIs in the URI spec > > at the time (RFC2396). The current URI standard (RFC3986) > > includes #fragments in URIs. > Hmmm... if we want to get technical, the RDFa Syntax Specification is > based upon XHTML Modularization, and brings in its datatype definitions > from there. URI in XHTML Modularization is defined as the XML Schema > datatype anyURI [1] [2]. That jives with sectioni 6.4 of the RDF spec: "Note: RDF URI references are compatible with the anyURI datatype as defined by XML schema datatypes [XML-SCHEMA2], constrained to be an absolute rather than a relative URI reference." > It was my impression that anyURI permitted > IRIs. Yes, more or less. > Steven? This was your thing. > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/abstraction.html#dt_URI > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-2-20041028/#anyURI > -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 9 February 2010 16:09:28 UTC