- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 23:06:31 +0100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
I came to a different conclusion on reading RFC 2396. I can see some justification for either. My concern, then, is that we end up specifying something that is not obvious on reading the relevant primary specification (RFC 2396). I don't see it's especially important -- maybe it's better to duck this particular issue? Otherwise, I think we should flag any decision clearly so that implementers don't overlook it. #g -- At 01:36 PM 3/29/02 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote: >On Fri, 2002-03-29 at 12:18, Dave Beckett wrote: >[...] > > We should not be testing for something with an undefined answer! > >My considered opinion is that the answer is defined by RFC 2396; > > "relfile" relative to mailto:foo@bar is mailto:relfile. >http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20020225-f2f/irclog-2002-02-26.html#T09-02-13 > >I regret that I cannot write a more detailed response, >nor investigate the state of this matter (whether >the WG has already decided on it or not) without >putting my other obligations at risk for the >next week or so. > >-- >Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Monday, 1 April 2002 17:19:55 UTC