- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2003 11:41:26 +0100
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Jeremy Carroll wrote:
[...]
> >
> > I think PFPS is right, and that ", the percent sign (%)" should be
> > deleted from the above paragraph
>
> I tried to take the text from the usual suspects and minimize the
> divergence between different W3C specs.
>
> cf in particular
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-charmod-20030822/#sec-URIs
>
> which links to
> http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-V10-2e-errata#E26
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xlink/#link-locators
> http://www.w3.org/International/2002/draft-duerst-iri-00.txt
>
> None of these %-escape %.
I should have read the thing more carefully :(
What our specs says is:
let URIREF = the set of URIREF's defined according to RFC2396 modified
by RFC 2732
then RDFURIREF = {x : encoding(x) memberof URIREF}
for the encoding defined in the spec which excludes encoding '%'.
test case: is http://example.org/foo%bar a member of RDFURIREF. Answer:
NO because http://example.org/foo%bar is not a member of URIREF.
I now see why it is the way it is (I think).
jjc, this was originally raised by PFPS
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0282.html
and I brought it up in your absence. Do you think you could resond to him?
Brian
>
> I believe that w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org and uri@w3.org may be appropriate
> forums for discussion of this issue.
>
> I am unwilling to make a change before the 5th September publication.
> Nor would I be happy with a change that is opposed by a consensus in the
> above forums.
>
> I am not yet convinced that this materially affects RDF since we *never*
> require the escaping to actually be performed, it is merely a
> theoretical exercise that defines a set of strings. I believe that the
> set of strings is the same whether or not % is itself escaped.
>
> Jeremy
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2003 06:46:47 UTC