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 14:33:23 -0700
Cc: uri@w3.org
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Message-Id: <661B9CAA-F227-11D8-BD91-000393753936@gbiv.com>

On Thursday, August 19, 2004, at 01:57  PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * 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.

Sorry. The document says yes/yes, and the ABNF does not accept any
other interpretation.

....Roy
Received on Thursday, 19 August 2004 21:33:10 UTC

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