- From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 13:39:54 +0100
- To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, W3C RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Hi Toby, > This is precisely the specific problem that should force us to disallow > relative URIs. If people think they can use relative URIs, they'll use > things like datatype="foo.html", but that will be interpreted as a > term, as "." is allowed in NCNames. The rules on when something is > interpreted as a relative URI reference and when it's interpreted as a > token would be confusing to authors. Well...we actually already have the rule. If it's not a term, and it's not a CURIE then by definition it's a URI -- absolute, relative, whatever. I think that's actually quite straightforward. Regards, Mark
Received on Monday, 17 May 2010 12:40:29 UTC