- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 18:25:37 -0400
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- CC: uri@w3.org
Roy T. Fielding wrote: > On Thursday, August 19, 2004, at 01:58 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > >>> 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. > > There is nothing incorrect about that term! You are imagining some > mystical quality that simply does not exist. "Relative URI" does > not imply anything about the definition of URI. We call it that because > that is the term people look for when they say: "gee, I wonder what part > of this document talks about relative URI?" That is why the section is > titled Relative URI, the following section is titled Absolute URI, > and the parent section is titled Usage. Those things are still called > "relative URI" in common practice, technology, specification, and > implementation. They *should* be called that. A "relative reference" > is an instance of the relative-URI syntax *when* it occurs inside a > URI-reference protocol element. > > The text of those sections, and the associated ABNF, defines > those protocol elements in a way that is unambiguous. Changing the > titles and the ABNF element just makes it harder for implementers > to find the definitions. I was asked what I find confusing. If the ABNF for URI does not allow for expression of relative references, then I find title "relative URI" to be reinforcing a confusing misconception. I submit that if the title of this section were "Relative URI Reference", then it would both be found by people looking for "Relative URI" and would not continue to perpetuate a misconception. >> 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. > > Yes, that is a bug. A suggestion was made at the IETF meeting to > drop the entire section on the basis that it just repeats most of > what has already been said better elsewhere. I believe that was in part based on my pointing out of a few things that were less than clear as to whether or not they were to be consider normalized (e.g., null queries, fragments, authorities containing "@" with a null userinfo or ":" with a null port). I personally am quite OK with the removal of section 6.3, but I'm hoping that these questions get clarified some place in the text. - Sam Ruby
Received on Thursday, 19 August 2004 22:25:41 UTC