- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 10:41:09 -0500
- To: Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>
- CC: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Drew McDermott wrote: [...] > [[[ > 4. URI References > > The term "URI-reference" is used here to denote the common usage of a > resource identifier. A URI reference may be absolute or relative, > and may have additional information attached in the form of a > fragment identifier. > ]]] > > Okay, more research has turned up the following, from > > http://www.w3.org/Addressing/URL/4_2_Fragments.html Er.. that's really old. It's obsoleted by RFC2396. > which is a section of > > http://www.w3.org/Addressing/URL/URI_Overview.html > > by Tim Berners-Lee: > > The fragment-id follows the URL of the whole object from which it is > separated by a hash sign (#). If the fragment-id is void, the hash > sign may be omitted: A void fragment-id with or without the hash sign > means that the URL refers to the whole object. > > So > xmlns:foo="http://random.org/expl#" > > and > > xmlns:bar="http://random.org/expl" > > use the *same* URI written two different ways, Not by current specs. The first one isn't a URI, strictly speaking. They're both URI references; the first one has an empty fragment and the second one has no fragment. (ask Fielding via uri@w3.org if you'd like more details.) > and hence define the > same namespace. Nope; the XML namespace spec is pretty clear: if the namespace name strings are different, you're not licensed to assume they're the same namespace. [it doesn't even allow for converting relative URI references to absolute form, which I consider a bug, but that's on hold.] > So Allegro's parser should not complain when it sees > the trailing #, Right. > although it could discard it. Nope. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2001 11:41:11 UTC