- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 08:08:35 +0900
- To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
On Sat, 2003-11-15 at 23:13, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote: > At 2:42 PM +0900 11/15/03, Dan Connolly wrote: > >"A link is built from two pieces: > > a base URI > > a URI reference" > > -- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/webarch-20031111/#links > > > >I think URI references are an irrelevant detail > >when discussing links. > > > >URI references are shorthand for URIs in general, > >not just in links. > > I seem to recall that URI references can have fragment identifiers > and URIs can't. No, in webarch, we use the RFC2396bis definition of URI http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/webarch-20031111/#def-uri for example... Nadia finds that the URI "http://weather.example.com/oaxaca#tom" refers to information about tomorrow's weather in Oaxaca. > If that's correct, this is the crucial distinction > here. > > >And the fact that URIs have a shorthand form isn't > >very interesting when discussing links. > > It's not the shorthand form that's so relevant here. It's the > possibility of a fragment ID. I think the existing text is fine. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Saturday, 15 November 2003 18:08:38 UTC