W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-uri@w3.org > May 2000

RE: are many URIs ultimately relative? was RE: are 'cid' URLs relative?

From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 13:27:10 -0400
To: "John Cowan" <jcowan@reutershealth.com>, <xml-uri@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000101bfc737$9f7273b0$1b19da18@ne.mediaone.net>
John Cowan wrote:
>
>
> Jonathan Borden wrote:
>
> > The point being that many commonly used URI schemes in fact
> employ context
> > information for resource resolution and are in this sense relative.
>
> True but irrelevant.  "Absolute" does not mean "independent of context"
> when applied to URI references.
>


Perhaps irrelevant to your own view of the issues. An since you understand
this all so very well you really needn't participate in the current
discussion unless to help the rest of use clarify these issues in our own
heads.

Since we are on the topic of clarification, this whole discussion started
because of the perception that there is a "bug" in the namespace spec
allowing relative URIs to be compared on a literal basis. This entire
voluminous and lengthy discussion is about the issues involving relative
URIs in the context of namespaces.

Several well respected individuals have discussed the desire to use URIs to
reference and sometimes even obtain resources, such as schemata. In the
context of this discussion it has been noted that comparing relative URI
references on a literal basis would give the mistaken impression that they
would resolve to identical resources. In this context the resource would be
an actual schema document.

I am merely trying to point out the fact that this 'problem' is not unique
to relative URI references but to absolute URIs.

This problem is relevent because it concerns difficulties in the idea of
using namespace URIs to *obtain* resources and is presumably why the
original DOCTYPE includes an FPI as well as a SYSTEMID.

So we see that few things are really absolute and irrelevence depends on
your context.

Jonathan Borden
Received on Friday, 26 May 2000 14:05:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Tuesday, 12 April 2005 12:17:23 GMT