- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 11:26:35 +0100
- To: uri@w3.org
At 10:20 17/09/04 -0700, Larry Masinter wrote: >The editorial problem of the definition of terms is over constrained; >there is no way to satisfy all of the desired properties. After an >enormous amount of deliberation and discussion, we've made a choice. >I believe this choice is the best solution, considering all of the >constraints. Me too. (Just to show there's some consensus here ;-) I also checked Roy's description of the change in [1], and think it's fine. I can see that some might prefer such a change to be more "in your face", and were I editor I would probably agree to add a note in the body text (section 1.1 or 4.2) describing relative-ref along the lines of: [[ NOTE: Previous versions of this specification used the term "relative-URI" to denote a relative URI reference, but this led to confusion concerning identifiers and references (see section 4 "Usage"). Hence the syntax term "relative-URI" has been changed to "relative-ref". ]] #g [1] http://gbiv.com/protocols/uri/rev-2002/rfc2396bis.html ------------ Graham Klyne For email: http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Monday, 20 September 2004 11:29:26 UTC