W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > January 2003

RE: Rationalizing the term URI

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 09:07:16 +0100
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@apache.org>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: <uri@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCGEFHGFAA.julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>

> From: uri-request@w3.org [mailto:uri-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Roy T.
> Fielding
> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 10:15 PM
> To: Julian Reschke
> Cc: uri@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Rationalizing the term URI
>
>
>
> > Are we really comfortable with the fact that after "clarifying" the
> > term URI
> > we get a situation where "URI" and "absoluteURI" do *not* differ in
> > that
> > "absoluteURI" is the set of a URIs that happen to be absolute?
>
> No, because absolute-URI will not include fragment.

See? That's *exactly* what I meant.

"absoluteURI" does not allow fragments, while "URI" does. What does the fact
that fragment identifiers are allowed have to do with being "absolute" or
not? From a terminology p.o.v., this is really ugly.

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Tuesday, 28 January 2003 03:07:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:31 GMT