- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 13:00:51 +0100
- To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, uri@w3.org
At 14:35 19/06/03 -0400, Al Gilman wrote: >At 05:45 AM 2003-06-19, Graham Klyne wrote: > >>or mid:, defined by RFC 2392, which is clearly non-hierarchical, but: >>[[ >> mid-url = "mid" ":" message-id [ "/" content-id ] >>]] >>-- http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2392.html > >Please explain in what terms you find the 'mid' scheme to be "clearly >non-hierarchical." I meant in the sense that it does not conform to the normal rules for hierarchical URIs; e.g. given a base URI: mid:m@example.ord/c@example.org and a URI-reference: m2@example.ord/c2@example.org making an absolute URI from these parts using normal hierarchical URI rules would yield: mid:m@example.ord/m2@example.ord/c2@example.org which isn't a valid mid: URI. #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org> PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9 A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
Received on Monday, 23 June 2003 08:07:58 UTC