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

Re: ID wording

To: "Dare Obasanjo" <kpako@xxxxxxxxx>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@xxxxxx>
Subject: Re: ID wording
From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <asbjorn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 20:51:57 +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 07:15:52 -0700 (PDT), Dare Obasanjo <kpako@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Relative URIs not being URIs is a new stance that is showing
up on discussions about this issue on other mailing lists.

Okay. I haven't read that anywhere until just now.

As far as I'm aware relative URIs have been considered URIs
for as long as they have existed.

Yes, but I can both understand and agree with the notion of them not being so. Either way, I think the Atom specification needs to mention this fact, such as PaceIdConstruct[1] does perfectly: «atom:id MUST NOT be a relative URI».

____
[1] <url: http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceIdConstruct>

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

References:
- Re: ID wording
  - From: Dare Obasanjo

Prev by Date: Re: Next step on Dates
Next by Date: Re: Using DC only for informational dates
Previous by thread: Re: ID wording
Next by thread: Re: ID wording
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread