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

RE: [046-lc-edit-relative-URI] proposed patch

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 11:26:35 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040920112552.02f46d90@127.0.0.1>
To: uri@w3.org

At 10:20 17/09/04 -0700, Larry Masinter wrote:
>The editorial problem of the definition of terms is over constrained;
>there is no way to satisfy all of the desired properties. After an
>enormous amount of deliberation and discussion, we've made a choice.
>I believe this choice is the best solution, considering all of the
>constraints.

Me too.

(Just to show there's some consensus here ;-)

I also checked Roy's description of the change in [1], and think it's 
fine.  I can see that some might prefer such a change to be more "in your 
face", and were I editor I would probably agree to add a note in the body 
text (section 1.1 or 4.2) describing relative-ref along the lines of:

[[
NOTE:  Previous versions of this specification used the term "relative-URI"
to denote a relative URI reference, but this led to confusion concerning 
identifiers and references (see section 4 "Usage").  Hence the syntax term 
"relative-URI" has been changed to "relative-ref".
]]

#g

[1] http://gbiv.com/protocols/uri/rev-2002/rfc2396bis.html


------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Monday, 20 September 2004 11:29:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:34 GMT