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

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 08:16:23 -0600
To: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-id: <1046441783.6608.12.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 06:14, Graham Klyne wrote:
> 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,

No, I meant the unicode string you'd get after parsing
&#567; (or whatever the real number is) in an XML
attribute value specification.

i.e. the unicode string that this n-triples term encodes:

<http://example.org/#Andr\u00E9>

from test001
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Apr/att-0116/01-charmod-uri.htm

This stuff is a nightmare to discuss by us-ascii email.
1/2 ;-)


>  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>
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Friday, 28 February 2003 09:16:15 UTC