Re: Relative URI or relative URI reference

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