W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > August 2004

Re: Relative URI or relative URI reference

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 16:15:33 -0700
Cc: uri@w3.org
To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
Message-Id: <56DB6C3A-F0A3-11D8-AF6D-000393753936@gbiv.com>

On Tuesday, August 17, 2004, at 03:33  PM, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
> Assuming I'm correctly reading the spec, and the intent is that the 
> only relative things are URI references, never URIs, then there are 
> two mistakes that are likely to lead to continuing confusion and 
> debate on this point:
> 1. The title of section 4.2 should be "Relative URI References", not 
> "Relative URI".
> 2. The first BNF production in section 4.2 should be titled 
> "relative-URI-reference", not "relative-URI". And of course rename it 
> where this production is referenced as well.

Those are not mistakes.  The section is named after the ABNF rule.
The rule is named to retain backward compatibility and ease-of-use
for other specifications that migrate to rfc2396bis.

The question of "what is a URI" is answered elsewhere in the document.
That won't stop some people from debating the point, but there is no
basis for any technical argument.

Received on Tuesday, 17 August 2004 23:15:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:08 UTC