- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2003 14:01:53 +0100
- To: "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>
- Cc: Art Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>, Charlie Abela <abcharl@keyworld.net>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Jeremy: >>>I suggest one of the following fixes in the validator code: >>>a) specify an arbitrary base URI instead of "" >>> >>>or >>>b) tell ARP to ignore this condition >>> setErrorMode( >>> ARPErrorNumbers.WARN_RESOLVING_URI_AGAINST_EMPTY_BASE, >>> ARPErrorNumbers.EM_IGNORE ); >>> >>>Personally I think option (b) is better. >>> Eric?: >>Any particular reason? I have no great preference for A, but it does >>seem like the triples generated by allowing unanchored relative URIs >>might cause someone trouble down the line. I am not unhappy with A. My weak pref for B is based on the dummy URI being arbitrary and hence potentially confusing for someone who asks, "where does that URI come from?" Admittedly option B may be confusing for someone who says "but the validator permits relative URIs". Given A is implemented let's go with that. Jeremy
Received on Monday, 1 September 2003 09:08:24 UTC