Re: "absolute URI reference" considered awkward (and in one case, overly constraining) from Tim Bray on 2002-09-06 (www-tag@w3.org from September 2002)

From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 09:54:37 -0700
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <3D78DDCD.60000@textuality.com>

Dan Connolly wrote:

> But there's some subtlety... the "endpoints" of the link
> are absolute URI references, even though the syntax
> of the reference is relative. I suppose we just explained
> that a few paragraphs above in the bit about relative
> URI references.

Right some language in the doc would be appropriate to make it clear 
that we understand the difference between the syntactic expression 
embedded in some resource and the version that actually gets used to 
access resources.

> Stuart and company, are you *sure* you don't want to use
> the term URI to include things like http://example/x#y?

I think a few of us would like this, but we would be pretty severely 
inconsistent with RFC2396. -Tim
> 
>

Received on Friday, 6 September 2002 12:54:39 UTC