RE: Relative URI or relative URI reference

> My experience is that it is very common practise to use a symbol "URI"
> or a reference like "... a URI, as per RFC 2396" to refer to something
> that includes what RFC 2396 calls relativeURI or to mean what RFC 2396
> calls URI-reference; an example for both would be the XHTML M12N REC,
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xhtml-modularization-20010410/>. Why is
> the definition in draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-06.txt not consistent
> with this common practise?

Actually, the XHTML M12N REC should have referred to the IRI document,
since it has been "common practice" in W3C documents to allow unencoded
characters outside of the ASCII range within XML bodies.

I would suggest changing:

OLD

  An ABNF rule for URI has been introduced to correspond to the
  common usage of the term: an absolute URI with optional fragment.

NEW

  An ABNF rule for URI has been introduced to correspond to one
  common usage of the term: an absolute URI with optional fragment.

Larry
-- 
http://larry.masinter.net