RE: archdoc, section 2


I find this really confusing...

> From: []On Behalf Of
> Tim Bray
> Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 8:53 PM
> To: Julian Reschke
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: archdoc, section 2
> Julian Reschke wrote:
> > ...states ([1]):
> >
> > 	"A Uniform Resource Identifier, or URI, is a character
> sequence starting
> > with a scheme name, followed by a number of scheme-specific fields."
> >
> > How does a relative URI fit into this statement?
> Read URI 2396.  It defines the term URI and URI reference, which
> comprises both relative usages and fragment identifiers.

Are you saying that a relativeURI is not a URI? In which case the archdoc is

Funny enough, when I recently claimed the very same thing on this mailing
list ([1]), I was told by both Larry and Roy that I was wrong.

> The RFC doesn't provide normative definitions of things that people care
> about and talk about, such "absolute URI" and so on. -Tim

RFC2396 does define the grammar terms absoluteURI, relativeURI... (and
more), but *not* the grammar term "URI". I think it should do that.


[1] <>

<green/>bytes GmbH -- -- tel:+492512807760

Received on Monday, 2 September 2002 08:22:57 UTC