- From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 09:36:04 -0400
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@dial.pipex.com>, "Eve L. Maler" <Eve.Maler@east.sun.com>
- Cc: xml-uri@w3.org
At 01:15 PM 7/11/00 +0100, Graham Klyne wrote: >At 10:17 AM 7/10/00 -0400, Eve L. Maler wrote: >>As always, I appreciate your thoughtful writeup. We in the Linking group >>will definitely have to look at the issue, though my understanding agrees >>with yours (that RDF assumes absolutizing because an RDF schema may exist >>at the other end, and that XLink was getting this behavior "by reference"). > >The RDF spec. is explicit about requiring absolutization: toward the end >of section 6 is a 3-point list describing the interpretation of >namespace-qualified attributes. Item 1 makes explicit reference to RFC >2996 section 5.2. RDF is welcome to absolutize all it likes. I'd strongly prefer that XLink require URI references, should it use them at all as identifiers, to be absolutized by the authors - i.e., forbid relative URI references and require literal comparison of strings. Otherwise we'll have all the same comparison issues we've debated here ad nauseam inflicted on XLink. If the RDF community enjoys that burden, they're welcome to it, but I'd rather not drop comparison issues on yet another audience. Simon St.Laurent XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed. http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books
Received on Tuesday, 11 July 2000 09:35:35 UTC