On 15/08/2019 13:02, Claude Warren wrote:
Learn something new every day...
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 5:44 PM Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> wrote:
(and it is technically wrong to have a # in the base)
so as a base "http://example.com/myfile.txt#"; is incorrect but "
http://example.com/myfile.txt/"; is correct?
Legal.
They are completely different URIs. "/" means something in http URIs.
Fragments are within the document named.
Base URIs are like HTTP requests which also do not have a fragement,
Resolving <one> against base URIs:
http://example/dir/
http://example/dir/file
and it's the same outcome.
http://example/dir/one
https://twitter.com/AndySeaborne/status/1156227576257482754
RFC 3986, section 5.2
5.2.3 - "Base.fragment" is not mentioned.
Jena does cope with # in the base - it drops it as per 5.2, 5.2.3
The only assignment is
T.fragment = R.fragment
(R being the relative URI being resolved, T the output)
Relative <#one> gives:
http://example/dir/#one
http://example/dir/file#'one
or technically does the last segment of the base need to be an NCName[1]?
"need" - no.
NCName is an XML-ism.
For RDF/XML it is a good idea - classes and properties can end up as XML
qnames.
in which case "http://example.com/myfile.txt"; but not "
http://example.com/myfile.txt#"; or "http://example.com/myfile.txt/";
How does one create a technically correct base that will convert
<one>
to
<one> can't become <http://example.com/myfile.txt#one>
Resolution can't introduce a fragment that isn't in the relative URI to
start with. <#one> works.
<http://example.com/myfile.txt#one>
or
<http://example.com/myfile.txt/one>
? Or is that just not possible?
Thx,
Claude
[1] https://www.w3.org/TR/xml-names/#NT-NCName
