- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 17:50:37 -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 26, 2011, at 8:47 AM, Jonathan Rees wrote: > On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote: >> >> 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 I hate to say this, Pat, but you're out of date with respect to URI 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? > > The distinction is still meaningful; upgrading the URI spec doesn't > change the resolution. The wording of the resolution is awkward in a > number of ways but its intent is clear, in the context of the > discussion that led up to it. Roy (and those who voted in favor) took > "http: URIs" to mean http: URIs sensu RFC 2396, not http: URIs sensu > 3986. > Oh well, that is a relief. But now, purely as a matter of terminology, how do we describe the distinction (between he URis which require a 303 and those that don't, the ones that used to be URIrefs) using the terminology of 3986? They are all URIs, but some need a 303 while others escape this silliness. And those are...what? Pat > Best > 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 22:51:14 UTC