W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2002

RE: Clarification of charmod-uri

From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 12:29:35 +0200
To: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: me@aaronsw.com, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <OF068477D3.6920760C-ONC1256BAB.003810B9@bayer-ag.com>

> > 1) maybe I am misunderstanding it but
> > [[
> > Axiom: Opacity of URIs
> > The only thing you can use an identifier for is to refer to an object.
> > When you are not dereferencing you should not look at the contents of
> > the URI string to gain other information as little as possible.
> > ]] -- http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Axioms.html#opaque
> >
> Isn't that very much in line with the xlink and XML erratum 26 text, which
> mandate delaying of %-escaping until dereferencing. When applied to RDF we
> then do not %-escape when constructing the graph; which is what we
> resolved.

I will first look deeper into those asap; no comments for the moment

> > 2) RFC2396 the URI spec so far, and I have to build
> > stuff like our R representative mechanism on top of that
> >
> ??? (Sorry I haven't understood)

from RFC2396 (on top of which which we try to build running code)

   For original character sequences that contain non-ASCII characters,
   however, the situation is more difficult. Internet protocols that
   transmit octet sequences intended to represent character sequences
   are expected to provide some way of identifying the charset used, if
   there might be more than one [RFC2277].  However, there is currently
   no provision within the generic URI syntax to accomplish this
   identification. An individual URI scheme may require a single
   charset, define a default charset, or provide a way to indicate the
   charset used.

   It is expected that a systematic treatment of character encoding
   within URI will be developed as a future modification of this

Received on Tuesday, 30 April 2002 06:31:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:12 UTC