W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg-comments@w3.org > July to September 2008

Re: [CT-Guidelines LC] Fragment identifier in link alternate href (I)

From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 20:26:51 +0100
Message-ID: <489757FB.7030602@mtld.mobi>
To: JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA <jmcf@tid.es>
CC: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "public-bpwg-comments@w3.org" <public-bpwg-comments@w3.org>

Using an empty href was one of the options considered and discussed. I 
think Dom shot it down with one of his razor sharp perceptions. I'll try 
to find chapter and verse.

Jo

On 04/08/2008 17:01, JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA wrote:
> ok, perfect ! thanks for the clarification ...
> 
> If Francois can ammend my comment referencing RFC 3986 section 4.4 instead of RFC 1808 that would be great.
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt
> 
> Best Regards
> 
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: public-bpwg-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-comments-request@w3.org] En nombre de Julian Reschke
> Enviado el: lunes, 04 de agosto de 2008 17:51
> Para: JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA
> CC: public-bpwg-comments@w3.org
> Asunto: Re: [CT-Guidelines LC] Fragment identifier in link alternate href (I)
> 
> 
> JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA wrote:
>> ...
>> As per RFC 1808 an empty relative URI href="" resolves to complete base URL, so it is suggested to use this mechanism to point to the current resource
>> ...
> 
> You really don't want to cite RFC 1808 anymore. It has been obsoleted by
> RFC 3986 over three years ago.
> 
> BR, Julian
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 4 August 2008 19:27:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:01:50 UTC