W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org > January to March 2006

Re: XLink 1.1: 5.4 "URI reference" unclear

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:47:05 +0100
To: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Cc: www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <o97ft11klakejvueo4ek71in6dljc8c7lc@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Norman Walsh wrote:
>/ Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> was heard to say:
>|>| What is a "relative URI"?
>|>
>|>See 4.2 in RFC 3986
>|
>| That's "Relative Reference". RFC 3986 does not define a concept of
>| "relative URI" as far as I can tell.
>
>Fair enough. Do you not feel that the note in 1.2.3 of 3986 covers our
>use of the popular and historically accurate term "relative URI"?
>
>      NOTE: Previous specifications used the terms "partial URI" and
>      "relative URI" to denote a relative reference to a URI.  As some
>      readers misunderstood those terms to mean that relative URIs are a
>      subset of URIs rather than a method of referencing URIs, this
>      specification simply refers to them as relative references.

That might cover it, but I don't see why XLink 1.1 should not use more
appropriate terminology.

>See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2006JanMar/0033.html

I replied to that then.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2006 15:46:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:39:46 GMT