- From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 13:01:06 -0500
- To: <www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org>, "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net>
>* 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. The XML Core WG reconsidered the issue and had consensus to stick with the better-known term "relative URI". Does this adequately address your comment, or do you wish for the XML Core WG to record your feelings on this matter as an official objection when we request CR? Paul Grosso for the XML Core WG
Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2006 18:04:28 UTC