Re: ID wording

[Dare Obasanjo <kpako@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- Asbjørn_Ulsberg <asbjorn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> 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).

Relative URIs not being URIs is a new stance that is
showing up on discussions about this issue on other
mailing lists. As far as I'm aware relative URIs have
been considered URIs for as long as they have existed. 

=====
THINGS TO DO IF I BECOME AN EVIL OVERLORD #25
No matter how well it would perform, I will never construct any sort of machinery which is completely indestructible except for one small and virtually inaccessible vulnerable spot.


		
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush