Re: Intent to close ISSUE-205

(reposted because of the override to reply to public-linked-json@)

On 16/01/13 01:27, Manu Sporny wrote:
 > The writing is on the wall. I suggest that the RDF WG move toward the
 > URL terminology.

The writing is on the wall ... but the predictive text algorithm is 
still running.

That is what the RDF-WG tried to do last time.  It tried to align "RDF 
URI reference" with what was emerging as IRIs.  And that's why it 
allowed spaces. But the IRI work changed course. (I was no there at the 

Let's balance where things might be going with the possibility they go 
somewhere else. This URL spec isn't even finished yet and the text is 
rough. Even a quick scan produced:

[[ Sec 5: URL
A URL is either a relative URL or an absolute URL. Either form can be 
followed by a fragment.

So, as currently written (and it's only draft text), an absolute URL 
does not have a fragment.  Possibly intentional, possibly not.  From an 
HTTP perspective fragments are not relevant.

[[ 5.1
A URL must be either a relative URL or an absolute URL, optionally 
followed by "#" and a fragment.

Is "#" part of the fragment or not? (answer from the parsing algorithm 
is "not")

I would have thought JSON-LD needs a term that includes the fragment and 
the #.


Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2013 10:18:27 UTC