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: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 09:04:50 +0100
Message-ID: <48995B22.6080401@mtld.mobi>
To: JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA <jmcf@tid.es>
CC: "public-bpwg-comments@w3.org" <public-bpwg-comments@w3.org>

I've been looking at this one, Jose, and it seems we got the wrong end 
of the stick. Thanks for pointing it out.

Jo

On 04/08/2008 20:26, Jo Rabin wrote:
> 
> 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 Wednesday, 6 August 2008 08:06:06 UTC

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