W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > November 2010

Re: [rdfa-api] IRI References

From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 18:02:47 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTik1BT0TBnqH=NpGHWV4j_AgDutwof4jvk0u-6qz@mail.gmail.com>
To: nathan@webr3.org
Cc: RDFA Working Group <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Hi Nathan,

RDF only uses IRIs, that's true, but RDF *serialisations* generally
use IRI references.

Note that an 'IRI reference' is not just a relative IRI as I think you
are implying -- they can also be absolute. That's why 'IRI reference'
is usually used in specs where you want to allow both relative /and/
absolute paths. In those situations using the definition for 'IRI'
wouldn't work, because that would then require a scheme and a path,
ruling out relative IRIs.

I think it's important to allow relative IRIs in the API. Obviously
they have to be converted to absolute IRIs in order to obtain RDF, but
as with RDF serialisations they're an important and useful shortcut
for programmers.



On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
> Hi All,
> Throughout the API documentation, it references "IRI References", however to
> the best of my knowledge the API, and RDF uses only "IRI"s, and in fact IRI
> References (../foo) aren't used at all.
>  IRI = scheme ":" ihier-part [ "?" iquery ] [ "#" ifragment ]
> Correct? or?
> Best,
> Nathan
Received on Sunday, 28 November 2010 18:04:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:05:22 UTC