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

Re: URI versus URI Reference

From: John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>
Date: Wed, 24 May 100 23:31:15 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200005250331.XAA26294@locke.ccil.org>
To: abrahams@acm.org
Cc: michaelm@netsol.com, timbl@w3.org, jcowan@reutershealth.com, xml-uri@w3.org
Paul W. Abrahams scripsit:

> The odd thing about 2396 is that there's only one place where it actually defines a
> URI, and that's in the Abstract (which should really be redundant and non-normative
> anyway).   Other than that, it just talks about the properties of URIs and the
> expectations we have of them.  Nowhere does it say that a URI must be absolute.  I
> can't find a single sentence, other than the one in the Abstract, that says ``A URI
> is ...'', and the one in the abstract only says that a URI is a compact string of
> characters for identifying an abstract or physical resource.   Nor can I find a
> syntax rule whose left side is `URI'.  Is there an explicit definition of ``the
> strict data type `URI' '' in 2396 that I've missed?

Seemingly not.  However, 2396 supplies a generic syntax for URIs
and URI references.  The actual syntax for URIs is the union of the
known schemes and their specific syntaxes, which are defined in
RFC 1738 (which is *not* superseded by 2396 with respect to the
syntax of specific schemes) and other RFCs.

-- 
John Cowan                                   cowan@ccil.org
	Yes, I know the message date is bogus.  I can't help it.
		--me, on far too many occasions
Received on Wednesday, 24 May 2000 23:08:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:42 UTC