URI coordination: blank URIs

This is for information, no action requested.

First, the minutes of the URI BOF held at the last IETF meeting are at [1]:

Also, there is an issue list [2]

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2003Mar/0043.html

[2] http://www.apache.org/~fielding/uri/rev-2002/issues.html

...

And so to the blank URI question:

I was reminded obliquely (by a comment about splitting URIs into QNames in 
Jena) that the folks looking at RFC2396bis (URI spec revision) have raised 
the issue of how to treat fragments attached to blank URIs.

Currently, according to RFC2396, #frag is always relative to the current 
document rather than the current URI resolution base.  This caused us some 
debate about how to deal with xml:base in RDF.

The current thinking in the URI group is to replace this with a discussion 
of (non-) retrieval when a bare fragment is used:

[[
017-rdf-fragment:
One cannot use the fragment to indicate relative to a base document,
other than to the current document.  Some want to allow XML parsers
for RDF to use base URI+fragment together.  The proposal would replace
discussion in current document with extended discussion of retrieval
when base is same as current document. There was support for this the
floor.
]]
-- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2003Mar/0043.html

[[
Note that this issue is a request to change the "current document"
algorithm.  This can be accomplished by changing the spec to remove
the bit about current document and instead replace the empty URI with
the base URI, later stating that a retrieval action must not take place
if the new URI differs from the base URI only by its fragment.
]]
-- http://www.apache.org/~fielding/uri/rev-2002/issues.html#017-rdf-fragment

(Actually, I think there's a typo there in the issue list:  the minutes 
reflect my understanding.)

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9  A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E

Received on Wednesday, 16 April 2003 06:32:44 UTC