W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2002

RE: Context Independent URI

From: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 09:32:13 -0700
Message-ID: <8BD7226E07DDFF49AF5EF4030ACE0B7E06621E18@red-msg-06.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Miles Sabin" <miles@milessabin.com>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>

Why are you getting your information from an old RFC? I assumed everyone got their information on URIs from RFC 2396 since it updates RFC 1808 and RFC 1738. Specifically you should note 
 
"G.3. Modifications from RFC 1738

   The definition of specific URL schemes and their scheme-specific
   syntax and semantics has been moved to separate documents.

   The URL host was defined as a fully-qualified domain name.  However,
   many URLs are used without fully-qualified domain names (in contexts
   for which the full qualification is not necessary), without any host
   (as in some file URLs), or with a host of  'localhost'."




	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Williams, Stuart [mailto:skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com] 
	Sent: Mon 7/22/2002 2:12 AM 
	To: 'Miles Sabin' 
	Cc: www-tag@w3.org 
	Subject: RE: Context Independent URI
	
	


	Hi Miles,
	
	Just re-checked RFC 1738 and got this bit wrong:
	
	> file: scheme URI which allow a hostname, but do
	> not identify the namespace from which the hostname is taken (eg
	> internet-domain name, DECNet, Novell IPX, Appletalk...)
	
	From RFC 1738:
	
	   A file URL takes the form:
	
	       file://<host>/<path>
	
	   where <host> is the fully qualified domain name of the system on
	   which the <path> is accessible, and <path> is a hierarchical
	   directory path of the form <directory>/<directory>/.../<name>.
	
	So... <host> is expected to be a domain name.
	
	Cheers,
	
	Stuart
	
	> -----Original Message-----
	> From: Williams, Stuart [mailto:skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com]
	> Sent: 22 July 2002 10:02
	> To: 'Miles Sabin'
	> Cc: www-tag@w3.org
	> Subject: RE: Context Independent URI
	>
	>
	>
	> Miles,
	>
	> > -----Original Message-----
	> > From: Miles Sabin [mailto:miles@milessabin.com]
	> > Sent: 21 July 2002 22:50
	> > To: www-tag@w3.org
	> > Subject: Re: Context Independent URI
	> >
	> > Williams, Stuart wrote,
	> > > So... I have tried to avoid using the term absolute to avoid
	> > > confusion with absolute and relative URI and tried to focus the
	> > > principle on the scope of the mapping from URI to resource/concept.
	> >
	> > Umm ... but that renders the "principle" pretty close to hopeless: a
	> > relative URI ISA URI, yet is quite clearly context dependent, and quite
	> > rightly so.
	>
	> Yes, I agree, the resource denoted by a relative URI is also context
	> dependent. What I am trying to pick up is that there are also some
	> (syntactically) absolute URI (in that they start with a scheme name) that
	> are also context dependent... eg. URI which use an unqualified domain name
	> as the assigning authority; file: scheme URI which allow a hostname, but
	do
	> not identify the namespace from which the hostname is taken (eg
	> internet-domain name, DECNet, Novell IPX, Appletalk...).
	>
	> Do each of the absolute URI file:///etc/passwd or
	> file://localhost/autoexec.bat or http://cally/ identify a
	> single resource or
	> concept?
	>
	> > At the very least the text of the principle needs
	> > a bit of serious tweaking.
	>
	> So... is there a particular 'tweak' that you had in mind?
	>
	> > Cheers,
	> >
	> >
	> > Miles
	>
	> Thanks,
	>
	> Stuart
	>
	
	
Received on Monday, 22 July 2002 12:32:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:09 GMT