- From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 09:45:44 -0500
- To: www-tag@w3.org
Dan Connolly writes: >The TAG has decided to use the term "URI" to include >relative URI references. CRITICAL. If the TAG has decided to blur the semantics of URIs and URI references, then I suggest that the TAG justify that decision in a formal document. URIs are not a superset of URI references, and the behavior of the two is very different. URI references may be representation-bound, while URIs quite plainly are not. I agree with Dan that this is a CRITICAL issue, but suspect that the TAG has it backwards - and dangerously so - if Dan is correct here in his claim about TAG decisions. I would like to ask the TAG to consider the ramifications of this distinction as an issue for further discussion. It appears to lurk at the foundations of Web Architecture. -- Simon St.Laurent Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets Errors, errors, all fall down! http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
Received on Tuesday, 14 January 2003 09:44:58 UTC