- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 23:09:53 -0500
- To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, semantic-web@w3.org
On Mar 25, 2011, at 5:27 PM, Jonathan Rees wrote: > *** triviality alert *** > > On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote: >> Which leads me to the idea that they ought to always have a hash in them, to avoid this tarpit. So they are URIrefs, not URIs. > > I hate to say this, Pat, but you're out of date with respect to URI > terminology. Say it, say it. I know I am woefully behind the times here. > You are indeed correct according to RFC 2396 (1998) - the > # occurs in the production for the "URI-reference" nonterminal. (There > is no "URI" nonterminal but it would make sense to assume a "URI" was > either an "absoluteURI" or a "relativeURI", neither of which allows > #.) However, its replacement, RFC 3986 (2005), has the following: > > URI-reference = URI / relative-ref > URI = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ] [ "#" fragment ] > > so those absolute but #-containing things we used to call URIrefs have > all been promoted to URI status. To which I say, congratulations! Then I am confused about http-range-14. My understanding was that the 303 requirement applied to 'bare' URIs which denote non-information resources, but not to (what used to be called) URI references. So for example ex:this must give a 303 if it is to denote, say, a planet; but ex:that#this can denote anything at all without HTTP having to do anything special. Is this distinction no longer meaningful? Pat > > Jonathan > ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Saturday, 26 March 2011 04:10:30 UTC