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

RE: URI versus URI Reference

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@attlabs.att.com>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 23:48:52 -0700
To: <abrahams@acm.org>, <michaelm@netsol.com>
Cc: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>, <xml-uri@w3.org>, "Roy Fielding" <fielding@ics.uci.edu>
Message-ID: <NDBBKEBDLFENBJCGFOIJAEFNCMAA.masinter@attlabs.att.com>
I think I have a different idea...

When we update RFC 2396, I suggest we add an introductory paragraph
explaining that the term "URI" is used ambiguiously in the community
to mean "a URI reference" (corresponding to the URI-reference BNF entity)
or "an absolute URI", and that for this reason, the term "URI" itself
is not defined in the document.

I'd probably fix the Abstract correspondingly, e.g.,
"Informally, a Uniform Resource Identifier is a compact string...."

so that people don't think that the abstract is normative.

Getting RFC 2396 out was enormously difficult; I originally had the idea
that
the revision should combine 1738 and 1808, but in retrospect, it's just
led to a lot of trouble.


Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net
>
Received on Saturday, 27 May 2000 02:49:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:43 UTC