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 22:13:07 -0400
Message-ID: <392DDDB3.135103AE@valinet.com>
To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, xml-uri@w3.org
Tim Berners-Lee wrote:

> >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?
> >
> >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
> URI''
> >but does not define the nonterminal URI.
>
> Good point.
>
> It uses the term absoluteURI.
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt
> page 26.

Hmmm.  Page 26 lists the authors' addresses.  Do you perchance mean page 27?

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

Yes!!!!   I don't think the cleanup of RFC2396 would be a huge job, and I'd
even be willing to help with it (though I have zero travel money).   I think
it's possible to develop terminology that's almost consistent with the
terminology now in use and to be explicit about all the statements that are now
implicit or preassumed.

Paul Abrahams
Received on Thursday, 25 May 2000 22:44:49 UTC

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