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

Re: URI versus URI Reference

From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 04:29:56 -0400
Message-ID: <000001bfc6a1$ad7b5a80$a80a1712@ridge.w3.org>
To: <abrahams@acm.org>, <michaelm@netsol.com>
Cc: <abrahams@acm.org>, "John Cowan" <jcowan@reutershealth.com>, <xml-uri@w3.org>

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul W. Abrahams <abrahams@valinet.com>
To: michaelm@netsol.com <michaelm@netsol.com>
Cc: abrahams@acm.org <abrahams@acm.org>; Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>;
John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>; xml-uri@w3.org <xml-uri@w3.org>
Date: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 9:38 PM
Subject: Re: URI versus URI Reference

>Michael Mealling wrote:
>> A URI Reference means that you have a defined base
>> and that fragments make sense because you know the content type of the
>> thing you are linking to. 2396 specifically divided the two. A 2396 'URI'
>> is what folx here have been calling an "absolutized URI".
>> I.e. the strict data type 'URI' does not allow for the relative URIs or
>> fragments. "URI References" are allowed to have all of those things.
>> The reasoning is that in many cases URIs get used by things that
>> aren't documents and for which relative and fragment semantics make no
>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
>anyway).   Other than that, it just talks about the properties of URIs and
>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
>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
>strict data type `URI' '' in 2396 that I've missed?
>There is, however, a definition of the term URI-reference and a syntax rule
for it.
>There's also the oddity of Section A, which is entitled ``Collected BNF for
>but does not define the nonterminal URI.

Good point.

It uses the term absoluteURI.
page 26.

This is the language term what is referred to generally as a URI.
Perhaps a revision is in order to clear this up.

Tim BL
Received on Thursday, 25 May 2000 19:32:07 UTC

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