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

Re: URI references and links

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 08:08:35 +0900
To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <1068937714.25261.2.camel@jammer.dm93.org>

On Sat, 2003-11-15 at 23:13, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
> At 2:42 PM +0900 11/15/03, Dan Connolly wrote:
> >"A link is built from two pieces:
> >   a base URI
> >   a URI reference"
> >  -- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/webarch-20031111/#links
> >
> >I think URI references are an irrelevant detail
> >when discussing links.
> >
> >URI references are shorthand for URIs in general,
> >not just in links.
> 
> I seem to recall that URI references can have fragment identifiers 
> and URIs can't.

No, in webarch, we use the RFC2396bis definition of URI
  http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/webarch-20031111/#def-uri

for example...
  Nadia finds that the URI "http://weather.example.com/oaxaca#tom"
  refers to information about tomorrow's weather in Oaxaca.


>  If that's correct, this is the crucial distinction 
> here.
> 
> >And the fact that URIs have a shorthand form isn't
> >very interesting when discussing links.
> 
> It's not the shorthand form that's so relevant here. It's the 
> possibility of a fragment ID. I think the existing text is fine.
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Saturday, 15 November 2003 18:08:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:22 GMT