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

Re: Relative URI or relative URI reference

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 22:57:06 +0200
To: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Cc: uri@w3.org
Message-ID: <41270c35.296576794@smtp.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> 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 
>specification.

I asked you to confirm my understanding. That implies that I read the
document and seems to be a necessary step in order to see whether the
document is sufficiently clear. Could you thus please answer the two
questions you have skipped? Thanks.
Received on Thursday, 19 August 2004 20:57:52 UTC

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