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

RE: archdoc, section 2

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 14:22:24 +0200
To: "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCAEEDFEAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

Tim,

I find this really confusing...

> From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> Tim Bray
> Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 8:53 PM
> To: Julian Reschke
> Cc: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: archdoc, section 2
>
>
>
> Julian Reschke wrote:
> > ...states ([1]):
> >
> > 	"A Uniform Resource Identifier, or URI, is a character
> sequence starting
> > with a scheme name, followed by a number of scheme-specific fields."
> >
> > How does a relative URI fit into this statement?
>
> Read URI 2396.  It defines the term URI and URI reference, which
> comprises both relative usages and fragment identifiers.

Are you saying that a relativeURI is not a URI? In which case the archdoc is
correct.

Funny enough, when I recently claimed the very same thing on this mailing
list ([1]), I was told by both Larry and Roy that I was wrong.

> The RFC doesn't provide normative definitions of things that people care
> about and talk about, such "absolute URI" and so on. -Tim

RFC2396 does define the grammar terms absoluteURI, relativeURI... (and
more), but *not* the grammar term "URI". I think it should do that.

Julian


[1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Aug/0145.html>

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Monday, 2 September 2002 08:22:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:11 GMT