- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 09:07:16 +0100
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@apache.org>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: <uri@w3.org>
> From: uri-request@w3.org [mailto:uri-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Roy T. > Fielding > Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 10:15 PM > To: Julian Reschke > Cc: uri@w3.org > Subject: Re: Rationalizing the term URI > > > > > Are we really comfortable with the fact that after "clarifying" the > > term URI > > we get a situation where "URI" and "absoluteURI" do *not* differ in > > that > > "absoluteURI" is the set of a URIs that happen to be absolute? > > No, because absolute-URI will not include fragment. See? That's *exactly* what I meant. "absoluteURI" does not allow fragments, while "URI" does. What does the fact that fragment identifiers are allowed have to do with being "absolute" or not? From a terminology p.o.v., this is really ugly. -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Tuesday, 28 January 2003 03:07:35 UTC