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

Re: URI versus URI Reference

From: Michael Mealling <michael@bailey.dscga.com>
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 09:10:41 -0400
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@attlabs.att.com>
Cc: abrahams@acm.org, michaelm@netsol.com, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, xml-uri@w3.org, Roy Fielding <fielding@ics.uci.edu>
Message-ID: <20000527091041.E11042@bailey.dscga.com>
On Fri, May 26, 2000 at 11:48:52PM -0700, Larry Masinter wrote:
> 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.

I could also go along with this idea. The previously suggested
ABNF fix is also fine since it doesn't change anything technical...

Whichever is easier to get concensus 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 Saturday, 27 May 2000 09:22:39 UTC

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