From: Peter M. <pkm...@po...> - 2004-06-08 10:34:28
|
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 00:11:46 +0300 , Oren Ben-Kiki <or...@be...> wrote: >Clark C. Evans wrote: >> Sure, that sounds great. Let's call the type !uri and it would >> comply with RFC 2396. > >I suppose we should. BTW, we do agree that we _only_ have !uri and we do _not_ >have !url, right? :-) > >At any rate, if we do that, it wouldn't be: >> !rdf/uri > >It would be simple "!uri". I think URIs are important enough to warrant being >included in the "commons" and not under rdf. Agreed to that, as long as URIs use the same sort of escaping as tag URIs. (So YAML like: 'http://abc.net/%64' is the same as 'http://abc.net/d'. More consistent and less confusion.) Cheers, Peter ___________________________________________________ Build strong relationships with your customers on Officemaster. Free trial! http://www.officemaster.net This email has been scanned for viruses. |
From: Oren Ben-K. <or...@be...> - 2004-06-08 20:12:42
|
On Tuesday 08 June 2004 13:33, Peter Murphy wrote: > >It would be simple "!uri". I think URIs are important enough to warrant > > being included in the "commons" and not under rdf. > > Agreed to that, as long as URIs use the same sort of escaping as tag URIs. > (So YAML like: 'http://abc.net/%64' is the same as 'http://abc.net/d'. More > consistent and less confusion.) Actually, this is not true in tags... we simplified the quoting rules. Tag "shorthands" are not URIs (though they have 1-1 mapping to URIs). Specifically, in tag shorthands (the "!" things) can use any printable character, and any non-printable character using "\" escape sequences. When converted to URI, non-ascii characters are encoded in UTF-8 and then, for everything not allowed in a URI, the bytes are encoded in %xx byte encoding . Thus, a "!tag/%64" is NOT the same as "!tag/d". On the other hand, a "!tag/\x64" is the same as "!tag/d". We could only get away with such a simple escaping mechanism above because we use an extremely restricted set of tags, with very specific semantics. A similar YAML-specific escape mechanism is not appropriate inside the content of a !uri tag because in the general case, escaping has strange and mysterious effects on the URI. It is a mess and we don't want to go there :-( So, the most you can do to content inside a !uri is to convert all non-ascii characters to UTF-8 and then %-encode them. Anything else is dangerous. Have fun, Oren Ben-Kiki |