- From: Jan Algermissen <jan.algermissen@nordsc.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 13:34:03 +0200
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, uri@w3.org
On Oct 23, 2012, at 1:25 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Jan Algermissen > <jan.algermissen@nordsc.com> wrote: >> On Oct 23, 2012, at 12:50 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >>> This also does not test the fragment case. >> >> Fragments are not sent to the server. > > They are still important to consider if we want STD 66 to be the interface. > > And yes, I know about URI and relative references. We call URI an > absolute URL and a relative reference a relative URL and together we > call them URLs. Who is 'we'? I don't, and I think many others don't either. Maybe this is part of the disconnect? Jan > We can have this discussion in whatever terminology > you prefer though. The input to the parser is always going to be a > relative reference, just sometimes there's no base URI. > > As for your last point. We have invested time and money in explaining > several problems starting over four years ago. Nothing happened. I > just explained how I came to the text in the URL Standard. I gave up > trying to work with STD 66 because the people working on that never > invested time in my problems with it and the data I had gathered > (mostly studying code in implementations and writing adhoc tests) > suggested it was not a suitable starting point. > > > -- > http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2012 11:34:34 UTC