- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 13:10:22 -0500
- To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
- CC: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <4C20FC8E.1000706@aptest.com>
RDFa Syntax 1.0 [1] says:
Since RDFa is ultimately a means for transporting RDF, then a key
concept is the /resource/ and its manifestation as a URI. Since RDF
deals with complete URIs (not relative paths), then when converting
RDFa to triples, any relative URIs will need to be resolved relative
to the base URI, using the algorithm defined in section 5 of RFC
3986 [URI <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#ref_URI>], /Reference
Resolution/.
I'm not sure that really addresses the basic issue though. We also
defer to the definition of the base element from XHTML M12N, which in
turn defers to the definition of the base element from HTML 4.01 [2]
which states, in part :
href = /uri/ <http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/types.html#type-uri> [CT]
<http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/types.html#see-type-for-case>
This attribute specifies an absolute URI that acts as the base
URI for resolving relative URIs.
So.... base must be an absolute URI and, according to 3986 [3] section
5.2, and in particular the algorithm in section 5.2.2, it is clear that
any fragment is not included in the base.
Hope this helps.
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#s_curieprocessing
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/links.html#edef-BASE
[3] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt
On 6/22/2010 8:30 AM, Mark Birbeck wrote:
> Hi Toby,
>
> It's this one:
>
> <> xhv:test<> .
>
> You get the base path by creating an absolute path based on the value
> in 'base'. And even if the base URI has a fragment identifier, the
> fragment identifier is dropped.
>
> I.e.,:
>
> assert.areEqual(
> absolute("http://example.net/#foo", ""),
> "http://example.net/"
> );
>
> This is definitely mentioned in the RDFa 1.0 spec, although I don't
> have time to look for it at the moment.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mark
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Toby Inkster<tai@g5n.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> So how is the following to be interpreted?
>>
>> <html>
>> <head rel=":test" resource="">
>> <base href="http://example.net/#foo" />
>> </head>
>> </html>
>>
>> I can imagine arguments in favour of:
>>
>> <#foo> xhv:test<> .
>> <#foo> xhv:test<#foo> .
>> <> xhv:test<> .
>>
>> I think this needs clarification; not just in RDFa 1.1, but also as an
>> errata for RDFa 1.0.
>>
>> --
>> Toby A Inkster
>> <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
>> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
>>
>>
>>
>
--
Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Tuesday, 22 June 2010 18:11:07 UTC