W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-fragment@w3.org > August 2009

Re: Fwd: change "URL" to "web address" throughout the HTML 5 spec (Issue-56 urls-webarch)

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 12:30:30 +1000
Message-ID: <2c0e02830908221930x38ca0aaesc52446b9552090d6@mail.gmail.com>
To: RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
Cc: Philip Jšgenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 7:26 AM, RaphaŽl Troncy<Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl> wrote:
>> The term URI doesn't seem to include relative references according to
>> what I forwarded. So, the creation of web addresses such as
>> "../test/video.ogv#t=12.50" is not covered when using the term URI.
>> This was what triggered my email.
>
> I'm not sure I understand the issue :-(
> Do you claim that: ./resource.txt#frag01 is *not* a valid URI?

Yes, it's a valid URI reference, but not a valid URI.

> It is according to Wikipedia,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Resource_Identifier#Examples_of_URI_references

Not quite.

According to the standard, URIs and URI references are not the same,
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Resource_Identifier#URI_reference
(also states "protocol documents should not allow for ambiguity").

When we talk about fragments, we actually always talk about URI
references. "In order to derive a URI from a URI reference, software
converts the URI reference to "absolute" form by merging it with an
absolute "base" URI according to a fixed algorithm." Take a look at
the standard to see the difference:
http://labs.apache.org/webarch/uri/rfc/rfc3986.html#uri-reference .

So, if we want to be correct, we should use "URI reference" everywhere.

Silvia.
Received on Sunday, 23 August 2009 02:31:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 September 2011 12:13:34 GMT