- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 14:06:36 +0000
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 11:06 AM 2/19/02 +0000, Jeremy Carroll wrote: >Well, I bet everyone hoped that xml:base was over! >It isn't. > >Summary issues: >=============== > >#1: (raised by Stuart Williams of the TAG). > RFC2396 refers to same document references. > rdf:ID is a same document reference. > A close reading of the RFC suggests that xml:base *does not* > apply to same document references. > I do not believe that this was the intent of the WG, and have > used a different algorithm (that in ARP) which *does* apply > xml:base to same document references. Noting that rdf:ID is _not_ an XML ID-type attribute, can't we define rdf:ID not to be a same-document reference in the sense of RFC 2396? Then it can be defined as generating a URI relative to the current xml:base? >#2: (first raised as an ARP defect, solved by > There is a minor bug in the algorithm of RFC 2396 which > I explicitly correct. I follow Mark Birbeck: > >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Dec/0021.html Seems reasonable. >#3: It is possible to construct an RDF/XML document which uses > the same ID to represent two different URIs. I allow this. Seems reasonable. >#4: The XML Base spec and RFC 2396 are silent about using a > URI of non-generic syntax (e.g. a mailto or a urn) as the base. > I think this is broken and have created test cases showing that. I think I agree. I think one could conceivably follow RFC2396 to allow combination of a base URI scheme with an opaque_part path, but I can't see why that might be useful. #g -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Graham Klyne MIMEsweeper Group Strategic Research <http://www.mimesweeper.com> <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2002 09:37:34 UTC