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

Re: URI versus URI Reference

From: Paul W. Abrahams <abrahams@valinet.com>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 11:05:34 -0400
Message-ID: <392D413E.9FE1E2A3@valinet.com>
To: abrahams@acm.org
CC: John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>, timbl@w3.org, jcowan@reutershealth.com, xml-uri@w3.org
"Paul W. Abrahams" wrote:

> I believe that the repair to RFC2396 would be simple, however: drop the term ``URI
> reference'' and replace it by ``URI'' in all its occurrences within the document.  It's
> an odd term in any case, since it seems to mean ``Universal Resource Identifier
> identifier'' (no one seems to be arguing that a URI reference points to a URI rather
> than to a resource).

Actually, that doesn't deal with the problem of fragments, I now realize.  But one could
write in Sec 4:

   URI-reference = [URI] [ "#" fragment-identifier]
   URI = absoluteURI | relativeURI

That pins down what a URI is and also what the difference between a URI and a URI reference
is.  It does explicitly accept relative URIs as a kind of URI and also as a kind of URI
reference.

Paul Abrahams
Received on Thursday, 25 May 2000 11:05:53 UTC

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