- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 18:18:47 +0000
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>>>Dan Connolly said: > On Wed, 2002-03-13 at 07:04, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > [...] > > Yes your right. I am convinced. I will switch error1 to positive. That was 2 weeks ago. I've since renamed it to positive after http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Mar/0167.html then back to negative after Jeremys' last message of 14 March: [[ I'll change my mind again! error001.rdf or test017.rdf I now think it's an error. ]]] -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Mar/0206.html > Good; this is the conclusion Larry and I came to[Cannes] on the > basis of: > > "5.2. Resolving Relative References to Absolute Form > > [...] > > Note > that only the scheme component is required to be present in the base > URI; the other components may be empty or undefined." > > -- http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt > > [Cannes] > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20020225-f2f/irclog-2002-02-26.html#T09-02-40 This is an URI resolution that I think has an undefined answer; neither the generic URI spec (RFC 2396) or the mailto spec define relative URI resolution for mailto scheme (RFC 2368). Jeremy quoted RFC 2396: [[ Some URI schemes do not allow a hierarchical syntax matching the <hier_part> syntax, and thus cannot use relative references. ]] I couldn't find any compelling answer as I went over in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Mar/0221.html and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Mar/0313.html We should not be testing for something with an undefined answer! Tricky to write code for :) Dave
Received on Friday, 29 March 2002 13:28:15 UTC