- From: Miles Sabin <msabin@interx.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 17:25:34 -0000
- To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Mark Baker wrote, > Ah, I missed the "URIs are a finite sequence ..." assumption. > The problem is that this assumption is incorrect. Wrong. If you look closely at RFC 2396 you'll see that URIs are defined by a completely ordinary context free grammar. Any good textbook on languages and automata theory will tell you that the each member of the set of strings conforming a to cfg is finite, and that the set itself, the language of the grammar, is at most countably infinite. Now, there's nothing to stop you, or anyone else, from defining a class of languages over infinite strings. Actually, you don't have to, because they are used occasionally. But not for the purposes of defining languages intended for machines to parse, and there's certainly not the slightest whiff of evidence that any such thing is being applied in RFC 2396. Cheers, Miles -- Miles Sabin InterX Internet Systems Architect 27 Great West Road +44 (0)20 8817 4030 Middx, TW8 9AS, UK msabin@interx.com http://www.interx.com/
Received on Friday, 4 January 2002 12:26:45 UTC