- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:47:05 +0100
- To: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
- Cc: www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org
* Norman Walsh wrote: >/ Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> was heard to say: >|>| What is a "relative URI"? >|> >|>See 4.2 in RFC 3986 >| >| That's "Relative Reference". RFC 3986 does not define a concept of >| "relative URI" as far as I can tell. > >Fair enough. Do you not feel that the note in 1.2.3 of 3986 covers our >use of the popular and historically accurate term "relative URI"? > > NOTE: Previous specifications used the terms "partial URI" and > "relative URI" to denote a relative reference to a URI. As some > readers misunderstood those terms to mean that relative URIs are a > subset of URIs rather than a method of referencing URIs, this > specification simply refers to them as relative references. That might cover it, but I don't see why XLink 1.1 should not use more appropriate terminology. >See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2006JanMar/0033.html I replied to that then. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2006 15:46:24 UTC