[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: ID wording

To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@xxxxxx>
Subject: Re: ID wording
From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <asbjorn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:21:01 +0200
Cc: Atom-Syntax <atom-syntax@xxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/>
List-id: <atom-syntax.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:atom-syntax-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
References: <> <> <>
Sender: owner-atom-syntax@xxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Opera M2/7.54 (Win32, build 3865)

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 11:38:54 +0200, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@xxxxxx> wrote:

URIs always are absolute. Relative URIs are not URIs (duh!).

Hmkay. Is it not necessary to write something about this in the specification, or do you think everyone that knows what an URI is also knows that it can't be relative? I remember a lengthy discussion about this on this list a while ago, and it took a long time for people to agree that atom:id should not be relative (even though most people thought it should be an URI).

--
Asbjørn Ulsberg         -=|=-        asbjornu@xxxxxxxxxxx
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»

Follow-Ups:
- Re: ID wording
  - From: Dare Obasanjo

References:
- ID wording
  - From: Paul Hoffman / IMC
- Re: ID wording
  - From: Asbjørn Ulsberg
- Re: ID wording
  - From: Julian Reschke

Prev by Date: Re: ID wording
Next by Date: Re: ID wording
Previous by thread: Re: ID wording
Next by thread: Re: ID wording
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread