W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > January 2000

Re: URI terminology, esp. in XML specs

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 08:12:54 -0800
Message-ID: <002f01bf5b85$90142300$c2bb1eac@redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, <uri@w3.org>
> We used "URI reference" because "absolute URI" excludes fragment
> identifiers,
> and we wanted
> http://example.net/#vocab
> to be a valid namespace identifier.
> But
> ../xyz/
> isn't a namespace identifier, until you combine it with a base
> absoluteURI.

I like to think of relative URIs as a simple model based compression
mechanism which doesn't affect the semantics of the identifier; changing
the relative or the base part has the same effect as changing the
resulting absolute URI. It should therefore always be possible to use a
relative URI wherever you can use an absolute URI
("absolute-URI-with-optional-fragment-id") in which case URI-reference
is the correct construction to use.

Section 5.1 in RFC 2396 gives some mechanisms for finding a base URI but
others may be devised. There is semantically no difference between a
relative URI that can not be resolved because the base can't be
determined and some URI you don't know how to resolve (for example

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen,
Received on Monday, 10 January 2000 11:14:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 10 October 2021 22:17:37 UTC