Cool. Hope you changed it in both specifications. Cheers, Silvia. On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Raphaël Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>wrote: > Hi Silvia, > > As discussed in the last telephone conference, I have updated the >> requirements document and the specification with a short paragraph in the >> Terminology section that explains that we use "URI" where "URI reference" >> may need to be used. >> > > Great, thanks! Your text was: > > "According to RFC3986 RFC 3986, URIs that contain a fragment are not > actually URIs, but URI references relative to the name space of another URI. > When this specification talks about media fragment URIs, it actually means > media fragment URI references. Since this is quite a mouthful, the > specification will imply URI references in the user of the word URI." > > that I have slightly updated to: > > "According to RFC 3986, URIs that contain a fragment are actually not URIs, > but URI references relative to the namespace of another URI. In this > document, when the term 'media fragment URIs' is used, it actually means > 'media fragment URI references'." > > Tracker, that close ACTION-103 > > > Raphaël > > -- > Raphaël Troncy > EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department > 2229, route des Crêtes, 06560 Sophia Antipolis, France. > e-mail: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr & raphael.troncy@gmail.com > Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242 > Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200 > Web: http://www.cwi.nl/~troncy/ <http://www.cwi.nl/%7Etroncy/> >
Received on Wednesday, 9 September 2009 00:39:17 UTC