W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-uri@w3.org > May 2000

Re: Terminology: `absolutization' is vile

From: Sam Hunting <sam_hunting@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 10:08:29 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <20000518170829.10427.qmail@web3004.mail.yahoo.com>
To: "Eve L. Maler" <Eve.Maler@east.sun.com>, xml-uri@w3.org
At 12:18 PM 5/18/00 -0400, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
>The term `absolutization' seems to have crept into these discussions.
> It's not used in RFC2396, which speaks of ``Resolving Relative
> References  to >Absolute Form''.

--- "Eve L. Maler" <Eve.Maler@east.sun.com> wrote:
> Officially the right term is "resolution."  But in normal usage, I
> find this ambiguous; it could be taken to mean retrieval too (and
> officially, the latter is supposed to be "access," which isn't
> quite parallel with "resolution" in normal usage).  As I've said
> in other forums, I favor "granting absolution." :-)

    <definition>RFC2396-style relative reference

<? "To imagine a language is to imagine a form of life."
    -- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations ?>

Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
Received on Thursday, 18 May 2000 13:09:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:13:58 UTC