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: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 13:01:06 -0500
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D3020217837F@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org>, "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net>

>* 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.

The XML Core WG reconsidered the issue and had consensus to
stick with the better-known term "relative URI".  

Does this adequately address your comment, or do you wish for
the XML Core WG to record your feelings on this matter as an 
official objection when we request CR?

Paul Grosso
for the XML Core WG
Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2006 18:04:28 GMT

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