- From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 12:37:45 +0000
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 12:15 31/10/03 +0000, Brian McBride wrote: >Graham Klyne wrote: > >[...] > >>>RDFCore would advise implementors that consume RDF that the RDFCore >>>specs are based on RFC 2396, a strict interpretation of which states >>>that URI's with too many ".."'s in their path are an error, though many >>>URI implementations correct that error and RFC 2396bis proposes to >>>require that correction. Implementors are free to choose whether to >>>strictly comply with RFC 2396 or be more liberal. >> >>I have broad agreement with the thrust here, but the last sentence might >>be interpreted as official permission to be non-standard. I suggest >>dropping it. > >I could live with that, though the intent of the last sentence is to give >permission to "be liberal in what you accept", i.e. correct errors. > >The original comment was "which should I use, 2396 or 2396bis." I'm >suggesting an explicit answer of "your call". I think we have to go with what is available. #g ------------ Graham Klyne For email: http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Friday, 31 October 2003 07:52:58 UTC