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

Re: Some RDFa 1.1 Core edge cases that we need to clarify

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 16:16:48 +0200
Cc: public-rdfa-wg@w3.org, Martin McEvoy <martin@weborganics.co.uk>
Message-Id: <B2FA168E-3BEA-46C7-9896-E5E7E099D7F2@w3.org>
To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>

On Oct 25, 2010, at 17:45 , Toby Inkster wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 13:15:44 +0100
> Martin McEvoy <martin@weborganics.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>> The second vocab attribute "2#" would resolve to
>> http://example.com/base2#which may be wrong?
> 
> No, that's not how base works. Check this in a browser:
> 
> <html>
> <base href="http://example.com/base">
> <a href="2#">hover over this link, look at status bar</a>
> </html>
> 
>> I think @vocab should always be an absolute URI (easier to parse an
>> less complicated) 
> 
> We already need to support relative links in @about, @resource, @src
> and @href, so supporting relative URIs in @vocab is not too much to ask
> from a parser.
> 
> Actually, re-reading the RDFa Core 1.1 spec, it seems we already allow
> @vocab to be relative (or at least we don't seem to forbid it
> anywhere). If so, then it seems my concerns are unwarranted, and
> vocab="2#" is well-defined.


That was my reading of the document, too. It is a URI, that can be relative. I do not think we have a problem here.

Ivan



----
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






Received on Tuesday, 26 October 2010 14:16:09 UTC

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