- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 14:29:54 +0100
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>>>Jeremy Carroll said: <snip/> > 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. Note that at present, RDF ID attributes are not XML IDs. RDF M&S uses a production from XML's original syntax, but does not say that the IDs have the same meaning as XML. There are also some words I think about ID creating a resource in M&S - which I think has been discussed previously (can't find them just now). I noted this as an issue near http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20010906/#rdf-id > 2: N-triple URIs are in US-ASCII and must be already encoded. The encoding of URIs in N-Triples must change to match the Charmod requirements, see the discussion on www-rdf-comments starting at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001JulSep/0245.html and subsequent responses by me. <snip/> Dave
Received on Thursday, 20 September 2001 09:33:09 UTC