- From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 14:03:09 -0400
- To: "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>
> In point of fact since a URI reference optionally is relative and > optionally has a fragment identifier, there are naturally four classes > of things here. I think we should name them, define them, and make it > handy for other people to use them. Strawman language: > > "A URI reference contains a URI, which may be relative or absolute, and > optionally has a trailing #-delimited fragment identifier. Thus there > are four classes of identifier, all of which are URI References: > > 1. URI - not relative, no fragment. This is what is sent from an agent > to another in the dereferencing process. > 2. Fragment-free URI Reference - relative allowed, no fragment. As an > example, XML 1.0 requires SYSTEM identifiers to be of this class. > 3. Absolute URI Reference - relative disallowed, fragment allowed. In > practice, almost all XML namespace names are of this class. > 4. Unrestricted URI Reference > > W3C Recommendations MUST be clear as to which class of identifiers they > support." I think we should establish at the strong SHOULD level that relative URIs should/must be allowed in a syntax wherever absolute ones are. The only example I can think of where they are not allowed (xmlns) was shown to be a problem at our Hawaii tag face-face, when most of the GET URI for a query was a namespace URI which could have been dramatically shortened if made relative to the URI of the query itself! timbl
Received on Monday, 1 July 2002 14:03:06 UTC