- From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 16:55:00 +0100
- To: "'Paul Grosso'" <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
- Cc: www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org, uri@w3.org, "'Jeremy Carroll'" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Paul, It seems you're having trouble with Jeremy's attachment. Below I've extracted a text copy that may help you understand my reponse. > I'm not sure what you are saying here--can you expand? I haven't been able > to see Jeremy's HTML file, and I'm not sure I understand what his answers > are in the cases he lists below, but I don't see how the in-scope base URI > and the document's retrieval URI could affect same document > references. Part of the context of Jeremy's question is consideration of xml:base and the answers he offers, the heading of the first column and the comment in his rationale... > >> e,f,i,j,k,l > >> Base does apply to same document references in RDF/XML ...all suggest that RDF/XML proposes to 'apply' an in-scope xml:base in resolving same document references. Regards Stuart -- Base Relative Resolved Number EASY: a "http://example.org/dir/file" "../relfile" http://example.org/relfile 007 b "http://example.org/dir/file" "/absfile" http://example.org/absfile 009 c "http://example.org/dir/file" "//another.example.org/absfile" http://another.example.org/absfile 010 GETTING HARDER: d "http://example.org/dir/file" "../../../relfile" http://example.org/../../absfile 012 e "http://example.org/dir/file" "" http://example.org/dir/file 008 f "http://example.org/dir/file" "#frag" http://example.org/dir/file#frag 001 MASTER CLASS: g "http://example.org" "relfile" http://example.org/relfile 011 h "http://example.org/dir/file#frag" "relfile" http://example.org/dir/relfile 013 i "http://example.org/dir/file#frag" "#foo" http://example.org/dir/file#foo 013 j "http://example.org/dir/file#frag" "" http://example.org/dir/file 013 k "mailto:Jeremy_Carroll@hp.com" "#foo" mailto:Jeremy_Carroll@hp.com#foo 015 l "mailto:Jeremy_Carroll@hp.com" "" mailto:Jeremy_Carroll@hp.com 016 No Consensus: m "mailto:Jeremy_Carroll@hp.com" "relfile" mailto:relfile 001 > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Grosso [mailto:pgrosso@arbortext.com] > Sent: 11 April 2002 16:11 > To: Williams, Stuart; 'Jeremy Carroll' > Cc: www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org; uri@w3.org > Subject: RE: Resolving references against base URIs > > > At 15:45 2002 04 11 +0100, Williams, Stuart wrote: > >Hi Jeremy, > > > >Hmmm.... > > > >> e,f,i,j,k,l > >> Base does apply to same document references in RDF/XML > > > >I think that you're changing the semantics of URI references > as defined in > >RFC2396, particularly section 4.2, same document references. > I think your > >answers would be correct only for those cases where the > in-scope base URI > >and the URI from which the document were retrieved are the same. > > Stuart, > > I'm not sure what you are saying here--can you expand? I haven't been able > to see Jeremy's HTML file, and I'm not sure I understand what his answers > are in the cases he lists below, but I don't see how the in-scope base URI > and the document's retrieval URI could affect same document > references. > > paul > > >Regards > > > >Stuart > >-- > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com] > >> Sent: 10 April 2002 18:43 > >> To: uri@w3.org > >> Cc: www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org > >> Subject: Resolving references against base URIs > >> > >> > >> > >> This is a comment about RFC 2396 that I have been actioned to > >> send on behalf > >> of the W3C RDF Core Working Group [1] > >> > >> The key issue concern resolving same document references > >> and/or resolving > >> against non-hierarchical URIs. > >> > >> These have been causing us difficulty in using xml:base > >> > >> As one of our deliverables we produce test cases [2]. > >> > >> A summary table of our URI resolution problems is as follows; > >> the answers we have agreed are in the attached HTML file. > >> > >> > >> EASY: > >> a "http://example.org/dir/file" "../relfile" > >> b "http://example.org/dir/file" "/absfile" > >> c "http://example.org/dir/file" > "//another.example.org/absfile" > >> > >> GETTING HARDER: > >> d "http://example.org/dir/file" "../../../relfile" > >> e "http://example.org/dir/file" "" > >> f "http://example.org/dir/file" "#frag" > >> > >> MASTER CLASS: > >> g "http://example.org" "relfile" > >> > >> h "http://example.org/dir/file#frag" "relfile" > >> i "http://example.org/dir/file#frag" "#foo" > >> j "http://example.org/dir/file#frag" "" > >> > >> k "mailto:Jeremy_Carroll@hp.com" "#foo" > >> l "mailto:Jeremy_Carroll@hp.com" "" > >> m "mailto:Jeremy_Carroll@hp.com" "relfile" > >> > >> > >> We have reached consensus on and approved all these tests > >> except for the > >> last which some of us consider an error and others resolve as > >> indicated in > >> the html file. > >> > >> The rationales for our views are approximately as follows: > >> > >> d "http://example.org/dir/file" "../../../relfile" > >> > >> [[[RFC2396 > >> In practice, some implementations strip leading > relative symbolic > >> elements (".", "..") after applying a relative URI > >> calculation, based > >> on the theory that compensating for obvious author > errors is better > >> than allowing the request to fail. > >> ]]] > >> Not permitted in RDF/XML. > >> > >> e,f,i,j,k,l > >> Base does apply to same document references in RDF/XML > >> > >> g > >> Failure to insert / is a bug with RFC 2396 > >> > >> h,i,j > >> Strip frag id from base uri ref before resolving. > >> Notice j is particularly surprising. > >> > >> k,l > >> Same document reference resolution even works for > >> non-hierarchical uris. > >> > >> m > >> - no consensus > >> > >> > >> The test suite is structured as follows: > >> > >> The positive tests on the test cases web site show a usage of > >> xml:base in > >> RDF/XML and the resolution of that usage in terms of the RDF > >> graph produced > >> (with absolute URI ref labels). Each test consists of two > >> files, an RDF/XML > >> document and an n-triple file (substitute .rdf with .nt in > >> the URL), being a > >> list of the edges of the graph. > >> > >> The negative test case shows possibly illegal usage of > >> xml:base in RDF/XML. > >> > >> > >> Our intent is that these tests will be part of a normative > >> revision of the > >> RDF recommendation. > >> > >> Jeremy Carroll > >> HP Rep W3C RDF Core WG > >> > >> > >> > >> [1] > >> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Apr/0008.html > >> 2002-03-22#4: jeremy Send mailto:uri@w3.org with appropriate tests > >> > >> [2] > >> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/xmlbase/ > >> > >> >
Received on Thursday, 11 April 2002 11:56:09 UTC