- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 16:16:48 +0200
- To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Cc: public-rdfa-wg@w3.org, Martin McEvoy <martin@weborganics.co.uk>
Received on Tuesday, 26 October 2010 14:16:09 UTC
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