- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:14:50 -0600
- To: Tony Hammond <t.hammond@nature.com>
- Cc: Misha Wolf <Misha.Wolf@reuters.com>, semantic-web@w3.org
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 15:56 +0000, Tony Hammond wrote:
> Hi Dan:
>
> True-ish. The hash char is not invalid – but it _is_ reserved.So,
> what’s the difference there? Though I guess it’s theoretically
> useable. This from RFC 2141:
>
> “2.3.2 The other reserved characters
>
>
> RFC 1630 [2] reserves the characters "/", "?", and "#" for
> particular
> purposes. The URN-WG has not yet debated the applicability and
> precise semantics of those purposes as applied to URNs. Therefore,
> these characters are RESERVED for future developments. Namespace
> developers SHOULD NOT use these characters in unencoded form, but
> rather use the appropriate %-encoding for each character.”
That looks like a scheme-specific RFC conflicting with the RFC
on generic synatx. Indeed, that's unfortunate.
I was going to say that it should work in practice, but this
problem seems to have infected the python standard library...
>>> urlparse.urlparse("urn:abc#def")
('urn', '', 'abc#def', '', '', '')
> Hard to know what to do.
I suppose so; the urn: stuff is bound to be less mature than
http, since it's used so much less often.
> Cheers,
>
> Tony
>
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2006 16:15:00 UTC