- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 12:30:30 +1000
- To: Raphaël Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
- Cc: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 7:26 AM, Raphaël Troncy<Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl> wrote: >> The term URI doesn't seem to include relative references according to >> what I forwarded. So, the creation of web addresses such as >> "../test/video.ogv#t=12.50" is not covered when using the term URI. >> This was what triggered my email. > > I'm not sure I understand the issue :-( > Do you claim that: ./resource.txt#frag01 is *not* a valid URI? Yes, it's a valid URI reference, but not a valid URI. > It is according to Wikipedia, > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Resource_Identifier#Examples_of_URI_references Not quite. According to the standard, URIs and URI references are not the same, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Resource_Identifier#URI_reference (also states "protocol documents should not allow for ambiguity"). When we talk about fragments, we actually always talk about URI references. "In order to derive a URI from a URI reference, software converts the URI reference to "absolute" form by merging it with an absolute "base" URI according to a fixed algorithm." Take a look at the standard to see the difference: http://labs.apache.org/webarch/uri/rfc/rfc3986.html#uri-reference . So, if we want to be correct, we should use "URI reference" everywhere. Silvia.
Received on Sunday, 23 August 2009 02:31:26 UTC