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.

....Roy
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