RE: Raising a few issues in fielding-uri-rfc2396-0x

Tim,

Question of clarification:

> 7. Section 4.
> 
> As to "." and "..", I agree with TimBL that it is violently inconsistent 
> to restrict the special meaning of these syntaxes to the relative form 
> of URIs.  If I am given the URI http://example.com/a/./b/../c I will 
> always, 100% of the time, regard that as http://example.com/a/c. I have 
> just verified that the first two randomly-picked web browsers I picked 
> in fact do this.  So the assertion that this only applies to the 
> relative form is, I assert, simply wrong and should be removed.

Does 100% of the time include the (perhaps ill-advised) use of the first of
these URIs to name an XML namespace?

Stuart
--