W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > September 2002

RE: [AF] relative URIs for attachments

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 18:18:33 -0700
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D0861832B@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, "Herve Ruellan" <ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>


Noah,

>Thank you for drafting this, it looks to me like a good start. 
> One point 
>of concern.  I don't think it's appropriate to say that a resource is 
>"identified" by a URI reference.  As I understand Web architecture, 
>resources are identified by URIs.  URI references are used to refer to 
>such URIs, and they allow some convenience forms (notably 
>relative) that 
>require conversion (to absolute) before the referent can be identified.

I agree that we should use the term "URI" and not "URI Reference"
throughout. However, in my proposal that I just sent out [1], I
suggested a separation between section 4 (model) and 6 (implementation)
that would cause the use of relative URIs to be mentioned in section 6
rather than 4.

>I'm not sure about the fragid stuff, but I URI refs support them 
>lexically, so we need to either say how to use them, or 
>explicitly rule 
>them out.  I can live with the above.  Thanks.

I am not sure I agree. Fragment identifiers' role is described in RFC
2396, section 4 [2] and TimBL's design notes [3]. In our case, all we
need is a mechanism for identifying the URI, whether there is a fragment
identifier or not doesn't really affect our use at all.

Henrik

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Sep/0134.html
[2] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt
[3] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Model.html#Fragement
Received on Sunday, 15 September 2002 21:18:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:11 GMT