- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 16:56:42 +0200
- To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Cc: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, W3C RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <1454B08A-8B1B-4E80-B765-CCD6C9323C39@w3.org>
On May 17, 2010, at 15:53 , Shane McCarron wrote: > FWIW it was my *intent* that we only permit absolute URIs. I remember that we debated this, I don't remember when nor why. However, just from a processing / parsing perspective, I think something evaluating an attribute that takes the type TERMorCURIEorURI would work like this: > • Does the value match the production for a term? If so, evaluate it as a TERM (which might mean it gets thrown away) and stop. > • Does the value match the production for a CURIE? If so: > • Is there a matching in scope prefix mapping? Yes, then expand the CURIE. > • No? Treat it as an absolute URI > But that is not what the text says, right? (Just checking my own interpretation.) What it says is process it as a URI which includes relative URI-s, too Ivan > In other words, in my mental model for this AND in my implementation, a relative URI would never get treated as valid because a relative URI doesn't have a prefix. Remember, the ONLY reason we added this rule was to accommodate absolute URIs. > > Regardless, if you all want to try to support relative URIs as well... I guess that's okay, but I agree with others that there is not really a use case I can see and I think it makes processing more difficult, introduces new, interesting, and ugly edge cases, and will make document authoring even more error prone. > > > On 5/17/2010 7:39 AM, Mark Birbeck wrote: >> 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 >> >> > > -- > Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 > Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 > ApTest Minnesota Inet: > shane@aptest.com > > > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on Monday, 17 May 2010 14:56:19 UTC