- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 11:04:23 +0000
- To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
I found TimBL's posting to be very illuminating: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Sep/0043.html I think there's an important identifier/reference distinction to be maintained here. Unfortunately, I am not aware that this led to any kind of consensus about URI/URIref terminology. #g -- At 09:45 AM 1/14/03 -0500, Simon St.Laurent wrote: >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 ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Wednesday, 15 January 2003 09:22:27 UTC