- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 12:50:20 -0700
- To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
- Cc: "Clive D.W. Feather" <clive@demon.net>, uri@w3.org
> This is exactly the confusion I'm militating against. The idea that > "relative URIs" are not a subset of "URIs" is simply bad terminology > and it needs to be fixed. Any normal person is going to say, of > course a relative URI is a URI. > > Either let's redefine "URI" so that a relative URI is a URI or let's > stop talking about relative URIs. The current path is just too damn > confusing. No, I have no power over time and that is the only way to change conversational use. There is such a thing as "Relative URIs". They are those things that you put into relative URI references when you don't use a URI. There is no reason for the specification to change just to satisfy one side of a pedantic argument that has nothing whatsoever to do with the protocol being defined. The only thing that matters is that Relative URI is a noun with a defined meaning, because that noun is associated with an ABNF rule that defines its syntax. ....Roy
Received on Wednesday, 18 August 2004 19:50:09 UTC