- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 22:51:26 +1000
- To: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr
- Cc: Sami Vaarala <sami.vaarala@codebay.fi>, Conrad Parker <conrad@metadecks.org>, public-media-fragment@w3.org
2010/4/28 Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@cwi.nl>: > Dear Sami, Silvia, > >>> 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'. >> >> This sounds good to me :) > > Thanks for your comment and the discussion. > @Silvia: I slightly changed your paragraph and updated correspondingly the > latest editor's draft: > > "According to RFC 3986, the term "URI" does not include relative > references. In this document, we consider both URIs and relative > references. Consequently, we use the term "URI reference" as defined in RFC > 3986 (section 4.1). For simplicity reasons, this document, however, only > uses the term "media fragment URI" in place of "media fragment URI > reference"." OK, cool, no worries. How is WWW Conf? Cheers, Silvia.
Received on Wednesday, 28 April 2010 12:52:19 UTC