- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 20:31:50 +0200
- To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Cc: "nathan@webr3.org" <nathan@webr3.org>, RDFA Working Group <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Ok. Thanks. One issue that the new a RDF WG will have to handle is to settle the URI/IRI issue. Thr charter is not yet public (but almost) but I can say that this is one of the entries on the charter. My feeling is that the curie-s in RDFa should refer to RDF and let then RDF sort this issue out. Let us keep away from this issue here. I ---- Ivan Herman Tel:+31 641044153 http://www.ivan-herman.net On Oct 28, 2010, at 20:03, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk> wrote: > On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 14:23:51 +0200 > Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > >> Guys, help me out please: what is the difference between 3986 and >> 3987? > > RFC 3986 is URI; RFC 3987 is IRI. URIs are US-ASCII only; IRIs are > Unicode and allow characters beyond U+007F in many places. Many > protocols and formats are not Unicode aware, so the IRI RFC defines a > mapping from IRIs to URIs. (A mapping in the reverse direction is > unnecessary as all URIs are automatically IRIs.) > > All things being equal, we probably want to use IRIs - they allow > people to use non-Latin characters in identifiers which is likely to > be a boon for RDFa's acceptability in cultures where the usual > alphabets are not derived from the Latin alphabet (e.g. Chinese, > Greek, Japanese, Thai, Iranian, etc). > > The problem is that RDF itself uses URIs as it was defined prior to to > existence of IRIs, so this would be an inconsistency between RDF and > RDFa. However, this doesn't seem to have proved a practical problem for > SPARQL which uses IRIs. We should get advice from TAG as they may be > able to provide us with information on what direction RDF is likely to > go (stick with URIs or switch to IRIs). > > -- > Toby A Inkster > <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> > <http://tobyinkster.co.uk> >
Received on Thursday, 28 October 2010 18:31:02 UTC