- From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 14:02:34 -0800
- To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
../a has nothing to do with URI References vs URIs. ../a is allowed by URIs and by URI references. You might be thinking of absolute URIs however :-) URI References are URIs that may have fragments. Oh darn, we don't have a term for a URI that has an absolutized portion that may have fragments. Cheers, Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org > [mailto:xml-dist-app-request@w3.org]On > Behalf Of noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com > Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 1:43 PM > To: David Orchard > Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org > Subject: RE: AFTF requirements list with comments, > pre-2003/01/28 telcon > (revised) > > > > David Orchard suggests: > > >> DR6. The specification must permit parts to be identified > by URIs or URI > References. This is similar to ChrisF's comment. > > I am a little surprised. I would have thought that what we want is: > > * The identity of each part is a URI (I.e. an absolute URI)( > > * References to parts are in the form of URI references (which are > resolved through the usual mechanisms to yield the absolute URI). > > David: are you really saying that you want to allow "../a" as the > identity of a part? Thanks. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 > IBM Corporation Fax: 1-617-693-8676 > One Rogers Street > Cambridge, MA 02142 > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >
Received on Thursday, 30 January 2003 17:07:00 UTC