W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > July 2004

RE: absolute vs. relative URIs?

From: Asir Vedamuthu <asirv@webmethods.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 04:28:41 -0700
Message-ID: <5B10E50E14A4594EB1B5566B69AD94072EF603@maileast>
To: 'Sanjiva Weerawarana' <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org

Sanjiva,

This is issues 148.

Issue 148: Double check URI comparison algorithm and relative URI use [1].

We discussed this at the Cannes F2F in March 2004. And,

RESOLUTION: Change all URIs EXCEPT import/@location and include/@location to
absolute URIs at the XML document level [2].

ACTION: Editors to change spec to require absolute URIs and indicate that
comparison must be done character-by-character as per TAG finding [2].

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x148
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Mar/0039.html

Asir

-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Sanjiva Weerawarana
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 2:13 AM
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: absolute vs. relative URIs?



In editing @style I noticed that we don't say "absolute URI" 
there .. and in a few other places. We do say it in some
places. 

It seems to me that all URIs *except* import/@location and
include/@location MUST absolutely be absolute. Those two MAY
be absolute or relative. I see no value in allowing relative
URIs for the others.

If you agree +1 it please .. I'll fix the wording then.

Sanjiva.
Received on Friday, 2 July 2004 07:31:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:31 GMT