- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 16:10:34 +0100
- To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, semantic-web@w3.org
Jonathan Rees wrote: > On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 6:50 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote: >> Oh well, that is a relief. But now, purely as a matter of terminology, how do we describe the distinction (between he URis which require a 303 and those that don't, the ones that used to be URIrefs) using the terminology of 3986? They are all URIs, but some need a 303 while others escape this silliness. And those are...what? >> >> Pat > > We have the folksy "slash URI", and lately I've been saying "hashless > URI", but I just looked in http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt and > found the following, which might do the trick: > > 4.3. Absolute URI > > 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 ] Yes, exactly, or absolute-IRI if using 3987. The term we don't have, is a term for IRI/URI with a hash, one for: scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ] "#" fragment Which would give us: URI = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ] [ "#" fragment ] absolute-URI = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ] hash-URI = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ] "#" fragment (and likewise for IRI) Best, Nathan
Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2011 15:11:36 UTC