- From: Michael Mealling <michael@bailey.dscga.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 12:31:57 -0400
- To: abrahams@acm.org
- Cc: michaelm@netsol.com, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, xml-uri@w3.org
On Fri, May 26, 2000 at 12:27:53PM -0400, Paul W. Abrahams wrote: >Michael Mealling wrote: >>On Thu, May 25, 2000 at 10:13:07PM -0400, Paul W. Abrahams wrote: >>>Yes!!!! I don't think the cleanup of RFC2396 would be a huge job, and I'd >>>even be willing to help with it (though I have zero travel money). I think >>>it's possible to develop terminology that's almost consistent with the >>>terminology now in use and to be explicit about all the statements that are >>>now implicit or preassumed. >> >>As long as you are talking about turning this: >> >>[From Appendix A: Collected BNF for URI page 27] >> >> URI-reference = [ absoluteURI | relativeURI ] [ "#" fragment ] >> absoluteURI = scheme ":" ( hier_part | opaque_part ) >> relativeURI = ( net_path | abs_path | rel_path ) [ "?" query ] >> >>to >> >> URI-reference = [ URI | relativeURI ] [ "#" fragment ] >> URI = scheme ":" ( hier_part | opaque_part ) >> relativeURI = ( net_path | abs_path | rel_path ) [ "?" query ] >> >>Then I'm fine with that. Anymore and we start changing what things >>mean and that changes technical content which people have come >>to rely on... > >That's the idea, except that I'd go further in the direction I think most people >want: > > URI-reference = [ absoluteURI | relativeURI ] [ "#" fragment ] > absoluteURI = URI > URI = scheme ":" ( hier_part | opaque_part ) > relativeURI = ( net_path | abs_path | rel_path ) [ "?" query ] Hmm... Ok. You just short-circuited mine by just declaring absoluteURI to be equal to URI. Same difference (I think)... >I'd also add a couple of sentences of explanation as to what is going on. In >particular: > >``A relative URI is a syntactic construct that specifies a URI in a manner >dependent on the context in which it appears. A relative URI is not a URI, >just as mock turtle soup is not turtle soup.'' Ok.... >Frankly, I think saying that a relative URI is not a URI, as most folks here >insist, is counterintuitive. But if the usage is too deeply embedded to >overturn, then the next best thing is to explain that what one considers >counterintutive is nonetheless true. hehe... ok. I consider treating relativeURI as a URI to be counterintuitive but intuition is a subjective matter so I'll let that one go. ;-) >I'd also add the missing definition at the very beginning of Sec 1 of RFC 2396: > >``A Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) is a compact string of characters that >identifies an abstract or physical resource. A URI is absolute, i.e., its >meaning does not depend on the context in which it appears.'' I think that's a little bit to stringent. There are URIs that are dependent on their context (the 'news' scheme has to know what your nttpserver is set to in order to be disambiguated). I think this would be more appropriate: "A URI is absolute, i.e.; its meaning does not depend on context that is not defined as being required for the particular URI scheme in question." In other words, yes URIs are absolute but a particular URI scheme can say what it may need in order to satisfy that criteria... -MM -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Mealling | Vote Libertarian! | www.rwhois.net/michael Sr. Research Engineer | www.ga.lp.org/gwinnett | ICQ#: 14198821 Network Solutions | www.lp.org | michaelm@netsol.com
Received on Friday, 26 May 2000 12:43:07 UTC