- From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 11:21:57 -0800
- To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
- Cc: WWW-Tag <www-tag@w3.org>
Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote: > I think the sentence "Put another way, it is often possible to determine > that two URIs are the same, but it is in general never possible to be > sure that they are different." is incorrect, and should be deleted. The > previous sentence, "comparisons of two URIs can establish with > confidence that they are equivalent and identify the same resource" is > correct. However, just because two URIs identify the same resource does > not imply they are the same URI. The sentence needs work, but I think the basic claim is correct; that any two URIs might happen to identify the same resource, and there is no way to prove that they don't. > Under URI schemes, the word "prefix" is not in keeping with RFC 2396 > terminology. 2396 uses the word "prefix" only twice, and in both cases > it clearly means something different than you mean here. I believe the > correct term is "scheme name". or just "scheme". Right. > In "Comparison of Relative URI References" the claim is made that URI > references can be relative and URIs cannot be. I've heard this before, > but I don't think RFC 2396 actually states this. My reading of 2396 is > that relative things are indeed URIs (and also URI references). The > authors of 2396 may have intended that all URIs be absolute. However, > they failed to put such language into the spec. We're relying on Roy and the process to clean up the 2396 language -Tim
Received on Wednesday, 11 December 2002 15:10:59 UTC