- From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:42:33 -0700
- To: "'Bjoern Hoehrmann'" <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: "'Roy T. Fielding'" <fielding@gbiv.com>, uri@w3.org
I thought I would survey existing RFCs to see if the notion that
the term 'URI', used without any qualification, is used with
a sense that does not include relative references.
This is a 'running code' argument. I just grepped RFCs for the word URI,
and look at the uses, in reverse order.
Based on this sample, I claim that 'common usage' is that
the term 'URI' use is more consistent with the definition
"does not include relative path" than not.
=========================================
RFC 3870: no relative paths;
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/#dfn-URI-reference
produces an 'absolute URI'.
RFC 3864: no relative path
e.g. A postal address, home page URI, telephone and fax
numbers may also be included.
'home page URI' assumes absolute, a relative reference makes
no sense.
RFC 3863: no relative path
All elements and some attributes are associated with a "namespace",
which is in turn associated with a globally unique URI. Any
developer can introduce their own element names, avoiding conflict by
choosing an appropriate namespace URI.
See http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-names-19990114-errata#NE04
RFC 3862: no relative path
The BNF is:
URI = <defined as absolute-URI by RFC 2396>
RFC 3861: no relative path
There is no application of relative paths with IM URIs.
RFC 3860: no relative path
registers IM URIs, no mention of relative paths
RFC 3859: no relative path
registers IM URIs, without any use for relative paths
RFC 3858: no relative path
resource: This attribute contains a URI for the resource being
watched by that list of watchers. It is mandatory.
...
Do I need to go on? The preponderance of 'current practice'
in IETF published documents is that 'URI' by itself without
qualification means 'no relative path'.
Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Friday, 17 September 2004 22:42:37 UTC