W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2002

RE: Context Independent URI

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 10:01:35 +0100
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F04A06F75@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Miles Sabin'" <miles@milessabin.com>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Miles Sabin [mailto:miles@milessabin.com]
> Sent: 21 July 2002 22:50
> To: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Context Independent URI
> Williams, Stuart wrote,
> > So... I have tried to avoid using the term absolute to avoid
> > confusion with absolute and relative URI and tried to focus the
> > principle on the scope of the mapping from URI to resource/concept.
> Umm ... but that renders the "principle" pretty close to hopeless: a 
> relative URI ISA URI, yet is quite clearly context dependent, and quite 
> rightly so.

Yes, I agree, the resource denoted by a relative URI is also context
dependent. What I am trying to pick up is that there are also some
(syntactically) absolute URI (in that they start with a scheme name) that
are also context dependent... eg. URI which use an unqualified domain name
as the assigning authority; file: scheme URI which allow a hostname, but do
not identify the namespace from which the hostname is taken (eg
internet-domain name, DECNet, Novell IPX, Appletalk...).

Do each of the absolute URI file:///etc/passwd or
file://localhost/autoexec.bat or http://cally/ identify a single resource or

> At the very least the text of the principle needs 
> a bit of serious tweaking.

So... is there a particular 'tweak' that you had in mind?

> Cheers,
> Miles


Received on Monday, 22 July 2002 05:02:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:52 UTC