- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 14:24:41 +0100
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Hmmm, I was just examing the XML specs concerning system identifiers .... See: http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-V10-2e-errata#E4 Your quote from the old RDF spec: Dan Connolly wrote: > > Note: Although non-ASCII characters in URIs are not allowed by [URI], > [XML] > specifies a convention to avoid unnecessary incompatibilities in > extended URI > syntax. Implementors of RDF are encouraged to avoid further > incompatibility and > use the XML convention for system identifiers. Namely, that a > non-ASCII character > in a URI be represented in UTF-8 as one or more bytes, and then these > bytes be > escaped with the URI escaping mechanism (i.e., by converting each byte > to %HH, > where HH is the hexadecimal notation of the byte value). > This seems to be a misinterpretation of the XML spec, which the erratum clarifies. We should, IMO, hence go along with the clarification, and the RDF/XML processor is responsible for escaping non-permitted characters in URI-refs. I also note that this is consistent with our test case: http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about/test2.nt http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about/test2.rdf which has not been approved, seems to suggest the following 1: ID's are subject to the same URI encoding rule. 2: N-triple URIs are in US-ASCII and must be already encoded. These seem like good things. Dan - do you know about namespace declarations? - are the URIs in Unicode (needing escaping) or US-ASCII? Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 20 September 2001 09:20:31 UTC