- From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
- Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 09:52:08 -0500
- To: Devon Smith <devon@taller.pscl.cwru.edu>
- Cc: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
On Friday, August 3, 2001, at 03:33 PM, Brian McBride wrote: >> Let me first say that conceptually, i like the idea of literals being >> resources, mostly because i think one should be allowed to make >> assertions about literals. However, the data: scheme is an >> unacceptable >> solution to the problem of how to assign a URI to a string of >> characters. The length limit, recognized by the RFC, is a legitimate >> concern for implementors. Another concern is how strings encoded >> in UTF-8, UTF-16 and other non-ascii, non-latin encodings would be >> dealt with. > > I was unaware of a length restriction on URI's. Is there one? Devon, in RFC2396 (the URI RFC) I see no mention of "length" or "size". Some HTTP implementations have a limit on the size of URIs that they can handle, but I don't think that's relevant since we're specifying the behavior of new, RDF processors. Is there something I'm missing? Can you please point me to this length limit? Thanks, -- [ "Aaron Swartz" ; <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ; <http://www.aaronsw.com/> ]
Received on Sunday, 5 August 2001 10:52:35 UTC