Re: URIEquivalence-15

> Briefly, I think that Tim Bray's draft finding has been faithfully 
> inserted
> into [1]. I think that as a whole there are then some internal 
> conflicts
> within the [1] eg. The final paragraph of section 4 (just before 4.1) 
> endows
> . and .. with special meaning only when used within a relative URI 
> reference
> while section within the URI equivalance text says that . and 
> ..
> shouldn't appear within absolute URI, but if they do its ok to 
> normalise the
> path and cutely I think addresses how by splitting absolute URI ref 
> into a
> base and a relative URI. These two sections seem slightly at odds.

Yep, I should have mentioned that last week -- Tim Bray's text (with
considerable reduction for scope) was the last item added prior to the
ID deadline, and so the issues regarding "." and ".." path segments
are only partially addressed in draft 01.  There are also some conflicts
between the new section 6 and section 2 on characters.


Received on Monday, 31 March 2003 14:44:52 UTC