- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 13:16:36 +1000
- To: Conrad Parker <conrad@metadecks.org>
- Cc: Sami Vaarala <sami.vaarala@codebay.fi>, public-media-fragment@w3.org
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Conrad Parker <conrad@metadecks.org> wrote: > On 15 April 2010 10:19, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: >> If you continue reading RFC 3986 to section 4.1, you will find >> >> URI-reference = URI / relative-ref >> >> We did not want to exclude "relative-ref" from the kinds of fragment >> URI references that we wanted to refer to. Thus, a "URI" is actually a >> subset of "URI reference". > > that sounds clearer. So instead of talking about "URIs containing > fragments" we should say that this specification covers "URI > references containing fragment identifiers", and restate that these > URI references may be URIs or relative references. > > As Sami points out, the phrase "URIs that contain a fragment are > actually not URIs" is still incorrect. > > Conrad. > So, how about reformulating the paragraph to: According to RFC 3986, the term "URI" does not include relative references. In this document, we want to cover both, URIs and relative references. This requires us to use the term "URI reference" according to RC 3986. For simplicity reasons, this document, however, only uses the term 'media fragment URI' in place of 'media fragment URI reference'. Feel free to make a better suggestion. Cheers, Silvia.
Received on Thursday, 15 April 2010 03:17:34 UTC