- From: Michael Mealling <michael@bailey.dscga.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 10:25:48 -0400
- To: abrahams@acm.org
- Cc: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, xml-uri@w3.org
On Thu, May 25, 2000 at 10:13:07PM -0400, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
> Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
> > >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.
>
> > 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.
As long as you are talking about turning this:
[From Appendix A: Collected BNF for URI page 27]
URI-reference = [ absoluteURI | relativeURI ] [ "#" fragment ]
absoluteURI = scheme ":" ( hier_part | opaque_part )
relativeURI = ( net_path | abs_path | rel_path ) [ "?" query ]
to
URI-reference = [ URI | relativeURI ] [ "#" fragment ]
URI = scheme ":" ( hier_part | opaque_part )
relativeURI = ( net_path | abs_path | rel_path ) [ "?" query ]
Then I'm fine with that. Anymore and we start changing what things
mean and that changes technical content which people have come
to rely on...
-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 Friday, 26 May 2000 10:36:49 UTC