URIEquivalence-15

Paul and I were tasked with reviewing whether the latest draft of RFC2396bis
[1] "satisfies URIEquivalence-15."

Briefly, I think that Tim Bray's draft finding has been faithfully inserted
into [1]. I think that as a whole there are then some internal conflicts
within the [1] eg. The final paragraph of section 4 (just before 4.1) endows
. and .. with special meaning only when used within a relative URI reference
while section 6.2.2.3 within the URI equivalance text says that . and ..
shouldn't appear within absolute URI, but if they do its ok to normalise the
path and cutely I think addresses how by splitting absolute URI ref into a
base and a relative URI. These two sections seem slightly at odds.

I have a couple of other comments to file against the URI equivalence
text... But on the whole I am happy that the text in [1] serves as our
finding and that we discuss any further refinements on the uri@w3.org as
comments made on the ID - and yes... As it matures we will have to ensure
that it continues to reflect the TAGs intent.

I'll make other comments on uri@w3.org and post a pointer here whenI have
done so.

Regards

Stuart
[1] http://www.apache.org/~fielding/uri/rev-2002/rfc2396bis.html