- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 11:01:21 -0500
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: www-archive@w3.org
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 14:17 +0300, Henri Sivonen wrote: > Hi, > > On May 13, 2009, at 12:54, Henri Sivonen wrote: > > > itemprop may take an 'absolute URL'. However, an 'absolute URL' is > > defined in terms of resolving onto itself and the algorithm for > > resolving URIfies URLs. Therefore, it seems that an absolute IRI > > cannot be an absolute URL. Since RDF seems to allow IRIs as > > properties and the current practice is to allow IRIs in various > > places, it seems to me that itemprop should take absolute IRIs > > instead of absolute URLs or the definition of absolute URL should be > > adjusted. > > > I wrote the above on public-html. Hixie advised me to bring it to your > attention specifically, because it seems the definition of 'absolute > URL' has undesirable implications. That is, a definition under which > an absolute IRI is also an absolute URL would be desirable. OK... thanks. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Wednesday, 13 May 2009 16:01:31 UTC