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: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:31:40 -0700
Cc: uri@w3.org
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Message-Id: <64F6E1CE-F216-11D8-BD91-000393753936@gbiv.com>

> There is a lot of confusion about whether a "URI" must start with a
> scheme and whether it may have fragment identifier. I've seen people
> arguing for yes/yes, no/yes, yes/no, and no/no, I consider no/no the
> most reasonable interpretation of RFC 2396 and no/yes the most common
> interpretation. RFC2396bis seems to be saying yes/yes.
> Do you agree that RFC2396bis says yes/yes?

Why don't you read the document that is being discussed, rather than
ask my interpretation of it?  The whole point of this review is to see
if you can understand the technology simply by reading the 

> Is whatever it says different from what RFC2396 said?

Yes.  As far as I can tell, this whole discussion is based on what
is in RFC 2396 and its associated hangover.  Anyone confused by what
is in rfc2396bis should look again and see how URI is defined.

Received on Thursday, 19 August 2004 19:31:25 UTC

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