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

Re: Relative URI or relative URI reference

From: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 23:50:49 -0400
To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
Cc: uri@w3.org
Message-ID: <20040819035049.GA29658@skunk.reutershealth.com>

Elliotte Rusty Harold scripsit:

> 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.

Do you think that stone lions, like the ones outside the New York
Public Library, are lions?  They certainly don't belong to the
species _Panthera leo_.

"Clear?  Huh!  Why a four-year-old child        John Cowan
could understand this report.  Run out          jcowan@reutershealth.com
and find me a four-year-old child.  I           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
can't make head or tail out of it."             http://www.reutershealth.com
        --Rufus T. Firefly on government reports
Received on Thursday, 19 August 2004 04:31:04 UTC

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