- From: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
- Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 10:31:04 +0100
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
- Cc: public-rdf-tests@w3.org, RDF Comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
>>> I disagree here—there Turtle spec should cover this. >> >> "should" or "does"? Are you arguing for a change to Turtle? I'm arguing that the spec made a mistake not to cover this explicitly. >> If it's a change, then -1 to these tests. Not a change, but an attempt to interpret the ambiguous wording in the spec along the lines of what was actually intended. >> One way is to avoid the area that is a problem for 3986 and change the tests to use the "/../" from the "/.." form. Would be fine with me; the problem is that these cases can still occur in Turtle documents. If they do, is the behavior then up to the implementer? >> ... in the one case where the base URI ends in "/.." which isn't good practice; RFC 3987/5.3.2.4 even says it is not intended usage. If we decide not to have tests for this for that reason, it would be good to have a note somewhere saying that the output of parsing (valid) Turtle documents with URIs ending in "/.." is not well-defined. >> The spec being Turtle? >> >> Please quote text where it says that about @base. > > The key for me was this sentence from the IRIs section: > > > Relative IRIs like <#green-goblin> are resolved relative to the current base IRI. +1 Ruben
Received on Monday, 26 October 2015 09:31:34 UTC