- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 11:19:22 +1000
- To: Sami Vaarala <sami.vaarala@codebay.fi>
- Cc: public-media-fragment@w3.org
If you continue reading RFC 3986 to section 4.1, you will find URI-reference = URI / relative-ref We did not want to exclude "relative-ref" from the kinds of fragment URI references that we wanted to refer to. Thus, a "URI" is actually a subset of "URI reference". Regards, Silvia. On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 5:03 AM, Sami Vaarala <sami.vaarala@codebay.fi> wrote: > Hi, > > A minor terminology nit: > > The current draft (http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-media-frags-20100413/) > states in Section 2.1 that: > > According to RFC 3986, URIs that contain a fragment are actually not > URIs, but URI references relative to the namespace of another URI. > > Based on my reading RFC 3986, this seems incorrect. > > RFC 3986, Section 3: > > URI = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ] [ "#" fragment ] > > Section 3 also gives an "example URI": > > foo://example.com:8042/over/there?name=ferret#nose > > The "URI" production refers to the generix syntax for a URI. The > "absolute-URI" production does not include a fragment identifier, but > is not intended to be the only URI format. RFC 3986, Section 4.3: > > Some protocol elements allow only the absolute form of a URI without > a fragment identifier. For example, defining a base URI for later > use by relative references calls for an absolute-URI syntax rule that > does not allow a fragment. > > absolute-URI = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ] > > This also implies that absolute-URIs are only a subset of all URIs. > > Best regards, > > -Sami > -- > Sami Vaarala > > > >
Received on Thursday, 15 April 2010 01:20:15 UTC