- From: Michael Mealling <michael@bailey.dscga.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 11:02:39 -0400
- To: abrahams@acm.org
- Cc: John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>, timbl@w3.org, jcowan@reutershealth.com, xml-uri@w3.org
On Thu, May 25, 2000 at 10:39:24AM -0400, Paul W. Abrahams wrote: > John Cowan wrote: > > Paul W. Abrahams scripsit: > > > > > 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. > > For URI references, yes. For URIs, no. There are no syntax rules with URI > on the left side. Based on the concensus at the time the strict data type 'URI' was denoted in the ABNF as the term 'absoluteURI'. The fact that the ABNF term isn't called 'URI' was for clarity since that simple acronym was used to many times within the ABNF. I.e. the error may be on your part in insisting that since the ABNF does not contain the term URI then it doesn't apply here. Indeed it does and the question before everyone is, since the XML Namespace document attempts to redefine the ABNF term 'URI-Reference' to something that specifically violates the ABNF and the semantics the document specifies for those terms, what part of the ABNF will the next version (if there is a versioning) of the document adhere to and not attempt to redefine. As far as I can tell the ABNF gives you really two useful choices: 'URI-reference' or 'absoluteURI'. This leaves you with three choices for moving forward to fix the problem: 1) pick one of the two ABNF terms 2) say your not using URIs at all 3) rewrite 2396..... My suggestion is #1 and that it be 'absoluteURI'... -MM -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Mealling | Vote Libertarian! | www.rwhois.net/michael Sr. Research Engineer | www.ga.lp.org/gwinnett | ICQ#: 14198821 Network Solutions | www.lp.org | michaelm@netsol.com
Received on Thursday, 25 May 2000 11:14:27 UTC