W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > January 2002

Re: Base URIs vs. Document URIs.

From: Jason Diamond <jason@injektilo.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 09:41:26 -0800
Message-ID: <016d01c19ac7$31be0270$6401a8c0@injektilo>
To: <uri@w3.org>
> 'Document URI' is your term and not defined in the standard notions.
>
> This is the URI by/with/from which you recovered a representation

Is there a standard term? Is 'Document URI' unacceptable? It would be nice
if we could refer to this concept without such long sentences as yours above
(especially when naming parameters in an API).

> Other, longer URI-references work, too, starting with
> "/base.xml#fragment". So
> it's not the only URI-reference you can use.

Of course. Thanks for pointing that out, though.

> And '.' doesn't work for _ibid_ for documents, just for path segments.
And in
> the case you have painted here where the historical URI and base URI are
> different, 'ibid' would be ambiguous.  So the lexically shorter form is
bound
> to the more local resolution, as is fitting.

I'm sorry but what does 'ibid' mean?

Thanks,
Jason
Received on Friday, 11 January 2002 12:41:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:30 GMT