- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 11:23:30 +0000
- 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