- From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
- Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 20:26:51 +0100
- To: JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA <jmcf@tid.es>
- CC: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "public-bpwg-comments@w3.org" <public-bpwg-comments@w3.org>
Using an empty href was one of the options considered and discussed. I think Dom shot it down with one of his razor sharp perceptions. I'll try to find chapter and verse. Jo On 04/08/2008 17:01, JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA wrote: > ok, perfect ! thanks for the clarification ... > > If Francois can ammend my comment referencing RFC 3986 section 4.4 instead of RFC 1808 that would be great. > > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt > > Best Regards > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: public-bpwg-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-comments-request@w3.org] En nombre de Julian Reschke > Enviado el: lunes, 04 de agosto de 2008 17:51 > Para: JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA > CC: public-bpwg-comments@w3.org > Asunto: Re: [CT-Guidelines LC] Fragment identifier in link alternate href (I) > > > JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA wrote: >> ... >> As per RFC 1808 an empty relative URI href="" resolves to complete base URL, so it is suggested to use this mechanism to point to the current resource >> ... > > You really don't want to cite RFC 1808 anymore. It has been obsoleted by > RFC 3986 over three years ago. > > BR, Julian > >
Received on Monday, 4 August 2008 19:27:59 UTC