- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 15:02:27 -0700
- To: Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@imc.org>
- Cc: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>, "Clive D.W. Feather" <clive@demon.net>, uri@w3.org
> Yes, there is. If it is confusing (as this blatantly is), then the > confusingness should be noted in the spec. Not doing so makes the spec > harder for the average person to understand. What confusion? So far, the only thing that is confused is that some people believe use of the term relative URI cannot exist separately from the word "references". Nobody seems to be confused about what a URI may be, nor are they confused about what a Relative URI may be, so the request to change all occurrences of "Relative URI" to "Relative URI Reference" and <relative-URI-reference> is both editorial in nature and fundamentally wrong. That section is defining syntax. <relative-URI> is a protocol element that is used by this specification and other Internet specifications as the means of syntactically distinguishing between a URI and a relative URI. The text of the document is already quite explicit and I am not going to make this change because it would require massive reformatting of the ABNF rules and create an arbitrary disconnect between this specifications and all prior specifications of the standard. That is not worth it even if I were to accept the premise that it is confusing, which I do not. ....Roy
Received on Wednesday, 18 August 2004 22:02:16 UTC