- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:27:06 +0100
- To: Joseph Holsten <joseph@josephholsten.com>
- CC: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, uri-review@ietf.org, public-html <public-html@w3.org>, URI <uri@w3.org>
On 23.02.2010 10:08, Joseph Holsten wrote: > On Feb 22, 2010, at 8:26 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: >> 1) >> >> "7. Relative "about" URIs >> >> As "about" URIs do not use a hierarchical path, relative "about" URIs >> are not permitted." >> >> I think this is misleading. >> >> A relative reference, as defined in<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc3986.html#rfc.section.4.2>, does not contain a URI scheme (by definition). So it's meaningless to talk about the scheme of a reference. >> >> In doubt, just drop the paragraph. > > It's meaningless, but there are a few issues. First, as a stupid implementor writing a URI parser and handler, I'm used to having to deal with relative URIs. Obviously, I'm going to be confused about the right thing to do is. I want to tell these people, "Don't worry, you don't have to deal with relative about URIs, they don't exist." Well, there aren't relative URIs. They are called "relative references". They do not have a scheme. So the question needs to be rephrased as: "what does happen when I resolve a relative reference against an "about" URI"? The answer is the same for all URIs (because generic URI processors need to be able to do this regardless the scheme), and the answer is in RFC 3986, Section 5 (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc3986.html#rfc.section.5>). > ... Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 23 February 2010 09:27:52 UTC