RE: escaping % in RDF URI references

(moved from the comments list)

Peter suggests following the IRI wording from "Namespaces in XML 1.1" rather
than the current wording in concepts.

This is essentially editorial, although Peter raises a substantive issue to
do with control characters.

Personally my preference would be to follow Martin Durst's advice ... [here
at least :) ].

Jeremy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider [mailto:pfps@research.bell-labs.com]
> Sent: 09 September 2003 12:15
> To: jjc@hpl.hp.com
> Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org; w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Re: escaping % in RDF URI references
>
>
> My reading on this issue indicates that it is a mess.
>
> My guess is that the intent is to make RDF URI references be absolute IRIs
> with optional fragment identifiers.  This intent is, however, almost
> impossible to decipher, even with the ``compatability with IRI'' note.
>
> The wording in the ``Namespaces in XML 1.1'' document is *much*
> preferable.  It lays out the intent, gives reasons why the intent cannot
> be specified with just a pointer, provides a temporary solution, and
> finally gives a way towards a permanent solution.
>
> Why isn't the same route taken in RDF concepts?  I don't view the current
> test in RDF Concepts as acceptable.
>
> peter
>
> PS:  It appears to me that the translation in RDF Concepts is different
> from the translation in Namespaces in XML 1.1.  In particular,
> RDF concepts
> allows control characters whereas Namespaces in XML 1.1 does not.
>
>
> From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
> Subject: Re: escaping % in RDF URI references
> Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 17:52:44 +0300
>
> >
> > > It appears to me that RDF Concepts does not require % to be
> %-escaped in
> > > RDF URI references (Section 6.4).  Surely this is a bug.
> >
> > Hi Peter
> >
> > In response to your message
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0282
> >
> > The requirement to not escape % is derived from the the other
> specifications
> > from which the text you mention is taken.
> >
> > See,
> >
> > 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
> >
> > The grammar in
> > http://www.w3.org/International/2002/draft-duerst-iri-00.txt
> >
> > is perhaps the most useful, this indicates that % is only
> allowed in IRIs when
> > part of an escape sequence, and not otherwise.
> >
> > Thus
> >
> > <rdf:RDF>
> >   <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.org/bar%foo">
> >     <eg:prop>val</eg:prop>
> >   </rdf:Description>
> > </rdf:RDF>
> >
> > is not legal, whereas
> >
> > <rdf:RDF>
> >   <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.org/foo%bar">
> >     <eg:prop>val</eg:prop>
> >   </rdf:Description>
> > </rdf:RDF>
> >
> > is legal (but does not represent an IRI in UTF-8 encoding).
> >
> > In a discussion of your comment, the RDF Core WG was inclined
> to add one or
> > more test cases (e.g. these two) and make no other changes.
> > Would that satisfy you? If so I will formally propose these
> tests and get back
> > to you once they have been added to the RDF test suite.
> >
> > If you believe that the design choice is fundamentally mistaken
> I believe that
> > it would be more effective to take that up with the IRI
> editors, perhaps on
> > uri@w3.org or w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org
> >
> > Jeremy
> >
> >
> >
>

Received on Tuesday, 9 September 2003 08:24:48 UTC