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

RE: proposed patch

From: <Black_David@emc.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 08:49:47 -0400
Message-ID: <B459CE1AFFC52D4688B2A5B842CA35EA07E5C8DF@corpmx14.corp.emc.com>
To: uri@w3.org

While I don't want to completely endorse Bjoern's email, the
term "relative URI" is used in draft-black-snmp-uri-07.txt,
which is currently in IETF Last Call and makes a normative
reference to the 2396bis draft to take advantage of numerous
improvements over RFC 2396.  If the term "relative
URI" is to be deprecated, I will have to make revisions to
the SNMP URI draft for what appears to be editorial taste
as opposed to a real technical issue.  If this needs to be
done, c'est la vie ...

David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
black_david@emc.com        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754

> -----Original Message-----
> From: uri-request@w3.org [mailto:uri-request@w3.org] On 
> Behalf Of Bjoern Hoehrmann
> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 5:41 AM
> To: Roy T. Fielding
> Cc: uri@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [046-lc-edit-relative-URI] proposed patch
> * Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> >A request has been made to remove all usage of the term relative-URI
> >from the specification, now listed as issue 046-lc-edit-relative-URI.
> >
> >The following patch will make that change to draft-06.xml. 
> In spite of
> >its length, the change remains IMHO editorial in nature.  If you do
> >not think it is allowable in the author's 48 hours of modifications
> >prior to RFC publication, or if you disagree with the patch, or if
> >you feel that this level of churn isn't worth it just to satisfy
> >confusion, then please tell us now by replying to this message.
> The change is by no means editorial, the term "relative URI" is well-
> established and commonly used in many technical specifications, your
> proposal to remove any definition for it as well as your previous
> proposal which is implemented in the latest draft which changes the
> definition of the term as in RFC2396 both harm interoperability which
> depends on clear understanding of the terminology. Your 
> proposed change
> also completely misses the points of the various concerns 
> raised in this
> regard, the problem is not the name "relative URI" but rather "URI"
> which is defined in a way incompatible with common usage of 
> the term. I
> have asked you three times now since the publication of the latest I-D
> for a rationale for this incompatible change and you have failed to
> provide one. The change you propose should not by applied but 
> rather the
> definition of "URI" should be changed to something that is compatible
> with common usage and interpretation of the term.
Received on Thursday, 16 September 2004 12:49:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 10 October 2021 22:17:46 UTC