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

RE: AFTF requirements list with comments, pre-2003/01/28 telcon (revised)

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 14:02:34 -0800
To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <01ad01c2c8ab$4c66bf00$4b0ba8c0@beasys.com>

../a has nothing to do with URI References vs URIs.  ../a is allowed by URIs
and by URI references.  You might be thinking of absolute URIs however :-)

URI References are URIs that may have fragments.  Oh darn, we don't have a
term for a URI that has an absolutized portion that may have fragments.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
> [mailto:xml-dist-app-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 1:43 PM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: RE: AFTF requirements list with comments,
> pre-2003/01/28 telcon
> (revised)
>
>
>
> David Orchard suggests:
>
> >> DR6. The specification must permit parts to be identified
> by URIs or URI
> References.  This is similar to ChrisF's comment.
>
> I am a little surprised.  I would have thought that what we want is:
>
> * The identity of each part is a URI (I.e. an absolute URI)(
>
> * References to parts are in the form of URI references (which are
> resolved through the usual mechanisms to yield the absolute URI).
>
> David:  are you really saying that you want to allow "../a" as the
> identity of a part?  Thanks.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
> IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 30 January 2003 17:07:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:13 GMT