RE: Context Independent URI

Hi Miles,

Just re-checked RFC 1738 and got this bit wrong:

> 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...)

From RFC 1738:

   A file URL takes the form:

       file://<host>/<path>

   where <host> is the fully qualified domain name of the system on
   which the <path> is accessible, and <path> is a hierarchical
   directory path of the form <directory>/<directory>/.../<name>.

So... <host> is expected to be a domain name.

Cheers,

Stuart

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Williams, Stuart [mailto:skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com]
> Sent: 22 July 2002 10:02
> To: 'Miles Sabin'
> Cc: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Context Independent URI
> 
> 
> 
> Miles,
> 
> > -----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
> concept?
> 
> > 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
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Stuart
>

Received on Monday, 22 July 2002 05:13:00 UTC