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

Re: "absolute URI reference" considered awkward (and in one case, overly constraining)

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 14:24:49 -0400
To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <20020906142449.B9972@www.markbaker.ca>

On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 02:00:51PM -0400, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
> So the term I would like the document to use are as follows:
> 
> What: The actual identifier in general, with or without #fragid
> Examples:  http://www.w3.org/    mailto:spam@ftc.gov
> http://www.w3.org/foo#bar
> Old:  Absolute URI Reference
> New:  URI
> 
> What: A reference to the above
> Examples:  http://www.w3.org/    /   mailto:spam@ftc.gov  /foo#bar   #bar
> Old:  URI Reference
> New:  URI Reference
> 
> What: An identifier with no "#"
> Old:  URI
> New:   <need to make something up maybe>

Much *much* better, IMO.

As for the name for the last concept, a couple I've considered are;

- Protocol URI
- Network URI

I chose those to emphasize that this is the kind of URI that is
explicitly part of the "wire contract".  I have a slight preference
for "Network URI".

MB
-- 
Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Friday, 6 September 2002 14:25:38 GMT

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