- From: Paul W. Abrahams <abrahams@valinet.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 11:05:34 -0400
- 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