- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 10:11:06 -0500
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- CC: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, W3C RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Yes, I agree that the current draft does not say this. Easily fixed if this is something we want to do. However, if we do, looking at @about, for example, it would meant that you couldn't say about="somepage.html" - and I think we wanted to permit that. In fact, I think that was the use case. That and resource="something.jpg". However, note that in both cases those attributes don't take TERMs, so there is less room for ambiguity. On 5/17/2010 9:56 AM, Ivan Herman wrote: > 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 > > > > > > -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Monday, 17 May 2010 15:12:21 UTC