Re: [Fwd: rdfms-literals-as-resources]

rfc 2397 is where the data: scheme is described.
i also, unintentionally, misrepresented what the rfc says. sorry.
it doesn't so much put a hard limit on the size of data: uris as
it recognizes that there are practical limits to how big they can be.
i really don't know if its relavant. 

and on a second read of the rfc i realized that the encoding issue
is a non-issue. somehow i missed the encoding mechanism part of the rfc.

devon

On Sun, Aug 05, 2001 at 09:52:08AM -0500, Aaron Swartz wrote:
> 
> 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 13:37:19 UTC