W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > March 2003


From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 18:37:12 +0100
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F04A07419@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'www-tag'" <www-tag@w3.org>

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 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.


[1] http://www.apache.org/~fielding/uri/rev-2002/rfc2396bis.html
Received on Monday, 31 March 2003 12:37:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:37 UTC