W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > February 2011

Re: Editorial changes to clarify usage of URIs / Absolute URIs and @profile

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 11:23:30 +0000
Message-ID: <4D5127B2.7070102@webr3.org>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>, RDFA Working Group <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Ivan Herman wrote:
> On Feb 8, 2011, at 12:12 , Nathan wrote:
>> Hi Shane,
>> Following on from two discussions on the list about the use of @profiles, and confusion over the terminology "TERMorCURIEorAbsURI" in the current RDFa-Core draft, I'd propose the following clarifications to the spec.
>> define:
>>  URI
>>    URI  = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ] [ "#" fragment ]
>>    A URI conforming to the Generic URI Syntax, as per section 3 of
>>    RFC3986 [1]
>>  AbsoluteURI
>>    absolute-URI  = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ]
>>    An absolute-URI as per section 4.3 of RFC 3986 [2]
> Wait, I am not sure I understand this.
> I do _not_ think that it is worthwhile for us to restrict a @profile value to be an AbsoluteURI in this sense. What you do is to remove the optional fragment, and I think that this is unnecessary on the specification level. We can add some warning on the effect of cache, but that is it.
> What I want to be sure of is that I could not do something like
> @profile="#me"
> ie, a 'pure' fragment ID, ie, a relative URI. (The same, probably, for @vocab.) But the URI specification you quote in the document seems to exclude that anyway. Ie, the spec is probably fine as far as I am concerned, it is just that some explanation might be worth somewhere that we do not use relative URI-s.

what about @profile="../foo" (and likewise vocab) ?
Received on Tuesday, 8 February 2011 11:25:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:05:24 UTC