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

Re: Relative URI or relative URI reference

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
Message-ID: <412a1e56.301217938@smtp.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* 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

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