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: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 15:02:27 -0700
Cc: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>, "Clive D.W. Feather" <clive@demon.net>, uri@w3.org
To: Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@imc.org>
Message-Id: <4AFB8C10-F162-11D8-A2AE-000393753936@gbiv.com>

> 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

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