- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 12:15:50 +0000
- To: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Graham Klyne wrote: [...] >> RDFCore would advise implementors that consume RDF that the RDFCore >> specs are based on RFC 2396, a strict interpretation of which states >> that URI's with too many ".."'s in their path are an error, though >> many URI implementations correct that error and RFC 2396bis proposes >> to require that correction. Implementors are free to choose whether >> to strictly comply with RFC 2396 or be more liberal. > > > I have broad agreement with the thrust here, but the last sentence might > be interpreted as official permission to be non-standard. I suggest > dropping it. I could live with that, though the intent of the last sentence is to give permission to "be liberal in what you accept", i.e. correct errors. The original comment was "which should I use, 2396 or 2396bis." I'm suggesting an explicit answer of "your call". Brian
Received on Friday, 31 October 2003 07:16:18 UTC