- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 16:28:33 +0000
- To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- CC: RDFA Working Group <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Agree, we could point to the ABNF for IRI and URI, something like: A valid IRI is one which matches the following ABNF as per RFC 3987 IRI = scheme ":" ihier-part [ "?" iquery ] [ "#" ifragment ] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3987#section-2.2 A valid URI is one which matches the following ABNF as per RFC 3986 URI = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ] [ "#" fragment ] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-3 Unsure of what text to use, but that's the definitions :) Best, Nathan Shane McCarron wrote: > I agree that this is an editorial error and agree with Nathan's > suggested reference fix. However, I feel like we should explain 'valid > IRI' somewhere locally so it is clear a 'valid IRI' must be absolute. > > On 2/5/2011 5:40 PM, Nathan wrote: >> Hi Shane, all, >> >> Currently TERMorCURIEorAbsURI is used by: >> @datatype >> @property >> @rel >> @rev >> @typeof >> >> The text in CURIE and URI Processing [1] currently reads: >> >> TERMorCURIEorAbsURI >> If the value is an NCName, then it is evaluated as a term according >> to General Use of Terms in Attributes. Note that this step may mean >> that the value is to be ignored. >> If the value is a valid CURIE, then the resulting URI is used. >> If the value is an absolute URI, that value is used. >> Otherwise, the value is ignored. >> >> Now, "absolute URI" is defined as: >> >> scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ] >> scheme ":" ihier-part [ "?" iquery ] // IRI >> >> So currently, by that text no URI with a fragment is allowed as the >> value of the five attributes aforementioned. >> >> I'm quite sure this is just editorial and due to the definitions in an >> old URI RFC (rfc2396), but for current URI and IRI specs we'll be >> needing "valid URI" or "valid IRI" >> >> IRI = scheme ":" ihier-part [ "?" iquery ] [ "#" ifragment ] >> >> which includes the fragment :) >> >> Suggest the text is changed from: >> >> "If the value is an absolute URI, that value is used." >> >> To: >> >> "If the value is a valid URI, that value is used." >> >> Which will clear this up. >> >> As an aside, might also be good if the first line read "If the value >> is a term, then it is evaluated as a term acco.." rather than NCName, >> we have term defined in the spec and it's definition is NCName any way. >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-core/#s_curieprocessing >> >> Best, >> >> Nathan >
Received on Sunday, 6 February 2011 16:30:14 UTC