RE: XML Base

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Beckett [mailto:dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk]
> Sent: 22 March 2002 10:45
> To: Jeremy Carroll
> Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg
> Subject: Re: XML Base
>
>
> >>>Jeremy Carroll said:
>
> <snip/>
> > I am arguing a catch 22, if you want to delete these, it is because some
> > people disagree with them, which is why we need them. I am happy with
> > deleting the ones that nobody disagrees with.
> <snip/>
>
> The only one that wasn't approved was test017/error001 and that is
> because I think the algorithm for resolving the URI was wrong in the
> proposed test017.nt
>
> I think resolving
>   base URI "mailto:Jeremy_Carroll@hp.com"
>   with URI "relfile"
> will give
>   URI "mailto:relfile"
> not
>   URI "mailto:/refile"
>
> because mailto is a non-hierachical URI scheme (does not start
> mailto:/ so can be detected by apps).


I agree that test017 is wrong. Your analysis is better than mine was.

However I have reverted back to it being an error. (error001).

The history from my point of view is:

+ I suggested it was an error because of non-hierarchical URI
+ The wg asked me to reconsider
+ I pointed to text in RFC 2396 that supported my position
+ DaveB indicated implementation difficulty in distinguishing hierarchical
and non-hierarchical schemes
+ I agreed with DaveB and suggested test017 as resolving that
+ Graham pointed out that RFC 2396 gives an easy syntactic distinction
between hierarchical and non-hierarchical schemes (is the first : followed
by /?)
+ I agreed with Graham and reverted to regarding this case as an error


Meanwhile ...

+ DaveB expressed concern that we were doing something that was not our job
+ I expressed limited agreement
+ TAG discussion has started up about URIs
+ Brian suggested deleting the relevant test cases
+ I identified the test cases, and mildly opposed deleting them



====

I think an outcome in which we do not *need* to provide test cases for URI
resolution is the ideal.
At least some of the test cases I posted are unclear, and hence require
clarification.

Brian's proposal may result in the clarity that we need without us stepping
beyond our competence.

Jeremy

Received on Friday, 22 March 2002 06:16:08 UTC