- From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 19:54:17 +0200
- To: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
- Cc: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>, MWI BPWG Public <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Le mardi 05 août 2008 à 18:22 +0100, Jo Rabin a écrit :
> > RFC 3986 makes it clear that same-document references are references to
> > the current representation of a resource and not the resource itself:
> > http://www.rfc.net/rfc3986.html#s4.4.
> >
> Well, I thought we had that discussion at the F2F and I thought Dom had
> a brilliant reason for discarding it. I remember successively trying 3
> different ideas till one got the Dominesque nod. And I thought one of
> them was specifically this. I will check the minutes out and see if my
> memory is at fault and find the reason that an empty reference did not
> meet with approval.
My reasoning was that given a URI U, the empty reference given in a
representation R of U by default would point to U rather than
specifically to R.
But the URI spec seems to say otherwise (as Francois noted above) - so
apparently, my reason for discarding it was not only not brillant but
also false :) :
When a URI reference refers to a URI that is, aside from its
fragment component (if any), identical to the base URI (Section
5.1), that reference is called a "same-document" reference.
[...] When a same-document reference is dereferenced for a
retrieval action, the target of that reference is defined to be
within the same entity (representation, document, or message) as
the reference;
I expect we will recognize that as part of our LC processing, but in the
mean time, it may be just as well to amend our message to the TAG
accordingly - unless you disagree, obviously.
Dom
Received on Tuesday, 5 August 2008 17:55:33 UTC