- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 12:45:21 -0000
- To: "Graham Klyne" <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Cc: "RDF core WG" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
I am happy with such changes. I guess you're knocking the ball back to Aaron's court over the final warning. Jeremy: > > > >[[[ADD: > >Finally, other non-RDF components of a system may expect to be > >able to treat a URI with fragment identifier in a manner similar to > >the treatment of a URL with fragment identifier used for document > >retrieval over the web. This may lead to interoperability problems. > >]]] Graham: > > I think that if this is to be included, we need some > justification (e.g. an > example where interoperability fails). I have found it hard to come up > with a convincing case. From my exchanges with Pat, I think the dragons > may not be as fiery as we first thought if we are clear about the > accidental nature of any relationship between URI and URI#frag as far as > RDF is concerned. >
Received on Friday, 8 March 2002 07:45:59 UTC