- From: Stuart Williams <skw@hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 14:18:36 +0100
- To: Anjels Green <sir-bor@teacher.com>
- Cc: public-webarch-comments@w3.org
Off-topic. Closed Anjels Green wrote: > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >The Atom 0.3 draft [1] states that "Link constructs MUST have a href >attribute, whose value MUST be a URI [RFC2396]" [2]. Should this be >changed to "whose value MUST be a URI, as defined by RFC2396 or its >successor," so that Atom can benefit from RFC2396bis? [3] > >Alternatively, we could state "whose value MUST be an IRI" [4]. After >reading all three specs (RFC 2396, RFC 2396bis, and the IRI draft), I >am not entirely sure what their relationship is. RFC 2396bis appears >to obsolete RFC 2396, and IRIs appear to "have a dependency on RFC >2396bis" [5]. Currently Atom mandates RFC 2396 only. I do not see >any discussion of this on the Atom wiki [6], and only one passing >mention of it in the list archives. [7] > >Could someone with more experience shed some light on this situation? > >[1] http://www.mnot.net/drafts/draft-nottingham-atom-format-02.html > >[2] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt >[3] http://gbiv.com/protocols/uri/rev-2002/rfc2396bis.html >[4] http://www.w3.org/International/iri-edit/draft-duerst-iri.html >[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004Feb/0001.html >[6] http://intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/UniversalResourceIdentifier >[7] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg02941.html >-- > > ___________________________________________________________ Sign-up > for Ads Free at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup > <http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/payment/adtracking.cgi?bannercode=adsfreejump01> > > > > > > >
Received on Friday, 22 October 2004 13:18:46 UTC