W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > June 2004

2396bis - new productions

From: Hammond, Tony <T.Hammond@nature.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:28:17 +0100
Message-ID: <125F7834E11A5741A7D79412EE3504F90AEF64E9@UK1APPS2.nature.com>
To: "'uri@w3.org'" <uri@w3.org>

Well, I'm confused as to what some of these new productions in the -05 draft
(of 2396bis) mean. (Thought everything was more or less hunky dory up til
-04, apart from allowing dot segment normalizations to be applied across the
board on all URI forms - both relative and absolute. Though did have some
general sympathies with this in terms of arriving at a greater level of
uniformity for the URI spec.)

But now I'm totally lost. What does


mean? ('nz' anyone? - 'nzc'?)

It's getting much tougher to understand what the BNF is actually trying to
describe. An ebbing away of English. Of course, these could just be treated
as mere placeholders in the URI rule set. But then it could also have been
made just a little bit more accessible to lesser mortals. (Or rather, the
engineers that need to implement this stuff.;)

I'm also not too crazy about the following - although these are commented in
sect. 3.3 (unlike 'segment-nz[c]' as far as ):


'path-abempty', for example, looks to be a little cryptic - and doesn't
really balance against 'path-abs'. 'path-noscheme' is also a little

The grammar may be tighter, but it is also much more difficult to follow or
to program against. Maybe just a question of renamimg or else commenting the
terms better in the relevant sections.


Also 'pct-encoded' does seem IMHO a weaker term than 'hex-encoded'. One
talks to form, the other to function. Just a personal take.

Tony Hammond

New Technology, Nature Publishing Group
4 Crinan Street, London N1 9XW, UK 


DISCLAIMER: This e-mail is confidential and should not be used by anyone who is not the original intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error please inform the sender and delete it from your mailbox or any other storage mechanism. Neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of Macmillan Publishers Limited or one of its agents. Please note that neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents accept any responsibility for viruses that may be contained in this e-mail or its attachments and it is your responsibility to scan the e-mail and attachments (if any). No contracts may be concluded on behalf of Macmillan Publishers Limited or its agents by means of e-mail communication. Macmillan Publishers Limited Registered in England and Wales with registered number 785998 Registered Office Brunel Road, Houndmills, Basingstoke RG21 6XS
Received on Thursday, 24 June 2004 06:30:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:07 UTC