On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, Dave Beckett wrote: > >>>Jeremy Carroll said: > > <snip/> > > I am arguing a catch 22, if you want to delete these, it is because some > > people disagree with them, which is why we need them. I am happy with > > deleting the ones that nobody disagrees with. > <snip/> > > The only one that wasn't approved was test017/error001 and that is > because I think the algorithm for resolving the URI was wrong in the > proposed test017.nt > > I think resolving > base URI "mailto:Jeremy_Carroll@hp.com" > with URI "relfile" > will give > URI "mailto:relfile" > not > URI "mailto:/refile" > > because mailto is a non-hierachical URI scheme (does not start > mailto:/ so can be detected by apps). Isn't there a canonical answer for this in the definition of the mailto: prefix? If not, this needs flagging up for TAG or appropriate body to find an answer to (even if it's "undefined") and the resolution of this changed to match. -- jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 RFC822 jan.grant@bris.ac.uk "NOP" is a trivial implementation of an executable Z subset.Received on Friday, 22 March 2002 05:56:20 EST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:46:20 EDT