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

Re: Relative URI or relative URI reference

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 16:58:45 -0400
Message-ID: <41251485.4070609@intertwingly.net>
To: uri@w3.org

Larry Masinter wrote:

>>>There are active implementers on the IETF's Atompub WG who are 
>>>confused about this. If that fact is not enough for you to want to 
>>>clarify things, then I doubt I can convince you more.
> 
> I agree with Roy. At this point, we don't need second-hand
> reports that "someone else is confused". What we need are
> first-hand reports that "someone who has read RFC2396bis
> feels that the wording in IT is still confusing."
> 
> So, can we please ask those active implementers in the IETF
> Atompub WG to speak for themselves?

I believe that this is an example of what Paul was referring to:

   http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg08608.html

To summarize: the fact that relative URIs references are not considered 
URIs is a new position, and should somehow be highlighted.

> If you want to speak for yourself -- do you personally think the
> wording in RFC2396bis is confusing? -- then that would be
> fine, too. 

I personally find the following confusing in RFC296bis:

  - - -

The title of section 4.2:

   Relative URI

I understand and appreciate the argument that the BNF needs to retain 
the previous usage of the term (some informative text making this 
history clear wouldn't hurt), but the title shouldn't reinforce the now 
incorrect usage of this term.

  - - -

The fifth bullet of section 6.3:

    Prevent dot-segments appearing in non-relative URI paths.

I'll suggest dropping the words "non-relative" from this text.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Thursday, 19 August 2004 20:58:46 UTC

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