W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > February 2003

RE: AFTF requirements, post-2003/02/07 telcon

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 10:14:44 -0500
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
Cc: jones@research.att.com, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFF54C83E2.06129C13-ON85256CCA.00536D1F@lotus.com>

David Orchard asks:

>> Could you point to the reasoning why my suggestion on 
>> requirement R6 was rejected? I can live without 
>> (and prefer to) relative URIs, but I have a tough 
>> time living without URI-References.

I think our intention was this.  On the web, resources are named with 
absolute URIs.  For example, my web page might be named:


A web resource is never named with a URI reference


So, we believe parts should be named with absolute URIs, like any other 
web resources.

As far as I know, URI References are, as the name implies, a mechanism 
available when you REFER to a resource.  THESE WE DO INTEND TO ALLOW, as 
far as I know.  So you can indeed when referring to my web page say:


which means:  "find the resource named http://example.org/noah.html, 
determine its media-type, and use that to interpret #somepara."  We do 
intend to allow such references in a SOAP envelope, or anywhere else, but 
the resource is named with the absolute URI.  Similarly:


might resolve to the same document and paragraph, >if a suitable base URI 
is known<.  If the binding or other mechanism provides such a base, then 
these references will be allowed too.  Still, the name of the resource is 
the absolute name.  It's the reference that's richer.  Thanks.

Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
Received on Tuesday, 11 February 2003 10:17:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:22 UTC