Re: call for agenda items for this weeks telecon (terminology) from Graham Klyne on 2003-02-28 (w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org from February 2003)

From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 12:14:51 +0000
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030228120612.038755b0@127.0.0.1>

At 10:04 PM 2/27/03 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote:
>It's not exactly RFC2396's absolute URI plus optional fragment;
>that doesn't include http://example/Andr&#567; ,
>which may be in the vocab of an RDF interpretation.
>This non-ascii stuff is the bit that's too new to
>import from any ratified spec.
>cf. TAG issue IRIEverywhere-27, cited from concepts section
>6.4 RDF URI References).
-- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Feb/0227.html

Dan, I'm not understanding you here:

As far as I can tell, "http://example/Andr&#567", or even 
"http://example/Andr&#567;", *is* allowed by RFC2396, and consists of an 
absolute URI + fragment [**].

I don't think that's what you meant, but I'm having difficulty figuring 
precisely what your actual concern is here.

#g
--

[**] My test case:

     "http://example/Andr&#567;"

parses as:

     [ ( URI "http:" "//example" ["/","Andr&"] "" "#567;", "" ) ]

-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>

Received on Friday, 28 February 2003 08:32:15 UTC