- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 14:54:17 +0000
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- CC: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Dan Connolly wrote: > 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/Andrȷ , >>>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). The williams issues are relevant here. He doesn't like the term RDF URI Reference because: 1: it looks like RDF doing its own thing rather than following other peoples' leads (despite the fact we were trying to follow charmod) 2: an HTTP URI reference starts http: ... He likes the term IRI, we could import this term from XML Namespaces 1.1; and it does not have "reference" in it but is very nearly what we use except for the NFC stuff. I think we should await input from I18N before nailing this one down. Jeremy
Received on Friday, 28 February 2003 09:54:51 UTC