- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 00:07:14 +0200
- To: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: uri@w3.org
* Roy T. Fielding wrote: >> 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. And why does it do that? Section D.1 only states: An ABNF rule for URI has been introduced to correspond to the common usage of the term: an absolute URI with optional fragment. How was it determined what is "common usage"? Did your research show that this is the most common usage? My experience is that it is very common practise to use a symbol "URI" or a reference like "... a URI, as per RFC 2396" to refer to something that includes what RFC 2396 calls relativeURI or to mean what RFC 2396 calls URI-reference; an example for both would be the XHTML M12N REC, <http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xhtml-modularization-20010410/>. Why is the definition in draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-06.txt not consistent with this common practise?
Received on Thursday, 19 August 2004 22:08:00 UTC