Re: URI references and links

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/