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

Re: [046-lc-edit-relative-URI] proposed patch

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:31:31 -0700
Message-Id: <C6B45044-0827-11D9-9B16-000393753936@gbiv.com>
Cc: uri@w3.org
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>

On Sep 16, 2004, at 2:39 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> The change is by no means editorial,

Editorial means that the technology does not change -- only the words
used to describe it.  It is editorial whether you like it or not.

> the term "relative URI" is well-established and commonly used
> in many technical specifications, your
> proposal to remove any definition for it

It wasn't my proposal.  It was a response to perceived consensus
that I made reluctantly.  You are supposed to respond to it in a timely
manner if you disagree.

>  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.

Nonsense.  The technology does not change and the old specifications
refer to URLs not URIs, and in any case use the definitions that are
still found in the old RFCs.

> 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.

You seem to be thinking about some other issue that was discussed
two years ago on the list and at the San Francisco IETF meeting.

> 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.

There is no incompatible change.  How can I find rationale for a figment
of your imagination?  You should be providing us with rationale.

Can you be more specific?  What change?  What definition do you think is
right?  What implementations are you basing your opinion on?  What are
you going to do about the vast majority of implementations that disagree
with your interpretation?  What implementations are *you* responsible 
that are, or would be, impacted by either definition?

Received on Thursday, 16 September 2004 21:32:11 UTC

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