- From: Hammond, Tony <T.Hammond@nature.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:28:17 +0100
- To: "'uri@w3.org'" <uri@w3.org>
Well, I'm confused as to what some of these new productions in the -05 draft (of 2396bis) mean. (Thought everything was more or less hunky dory up til -04, apart from allowing dot segment normalizations to be applied across the board on all URI forms - both relative and absolute. Though did have some general sympathies with this in terms of arriving at a greater level of uniformity for the URI spec.) But now I'm totally lost. What does segment-nz or segment-nzc mean? ('nz' anyone? - 'nzc'?) It's getting much tougher to understand what the BNF is actually trying to describe. An ebbing away of English. Of course, these could just be treated as mere placeholders in the URI rule set. But then it could also have been made just a little bit more accessible to lesser mortals. (Or rather, the engineers that need to implement this stuff.;) I'm also not too crazy about the following - although these are commented in sect. 3.3 (unlike 'segment-nz[c]' as far as ): path-abempty path-abs path-noscheme path-rootless path-empty 'path-abempty', for example, looks to be a little cryptic - and doesn't really balance against 'path-abs'. 'path-noscheme' is also a little confusing. The grammar may be tighter, but it is also much more difficult to follow or to program against. Maybe just a question of renamimg or else commenting the terms better in the relevant sections. Tony ps/ Also 'pct-encoded' does seem IMHO a weaker term than 'hex-encoded'. One talks to form, the other to function. Just a personal take. Tony Hammond New Technology, Nature Publishing Group 4 Crinan Street, London N1 9XW, UK tel:+44-20-7843-4659 mailto:t.hammond@nature.com ******************************************************************************** DISCLAIMER: This e-mail is confidential and should not be used by anyone who is not the original intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error please inform the sender and delete it from your mailbox or any other storage mechanism. Neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of Macmillan Publishers Limited or one of its agents. Please note that neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents accept any responsibility for viruses that may be contained in this e-mail or its attachments and it is your responsibility to scan the e-mail and attachments (if any). No contracts may be concluded on behalf of Macmillan Publishers Limited or its agents by means of e-mail communication. Macmillan Publishers Limited Registered in England and Wales with registered number 785998 Registered Office Brunel Road, Houndmills, Basingstoke RG21 6XS ********************************************************************************
Received on Thursday, 24 June 2004 06:30:20 UTC