- From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
- Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 09:04:50 +0100
- To: JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA <jmcf@tid.es>
- CC: "public-bpwg-comments@w3.org" <public-bpwg-comments@w3.org>
I've been looking at this one, Jose, and it seems we got the wrong end of the stick. Thanks for pointing it out. Jo On 04/08/2008 20:26, Jo Rabin wrote: > > 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 Wednesday, 6 August 2008 08:06:06 UTC