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

Re: Atom 1.0 xml:base/URI funnies

To: Sam Ruby <rubys@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Atom 1.0 xml:base/URI funnies
From: Tim Bray <Tim.Bray@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 14:01:55 -0700
Cc: atom-syntax WG <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

On Jul 16, 2005, at 1:28 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:

I didn't realize that "path-empty" was a valid URI-reference.

Yeah, it means "here".

While it clearly shouldn't be the default behavior, longer term (i.e., sometime well after basic Atom 1.0 support is more complete), how much value do you think that there would be value in an option to attempt to verify all potentially dereferencable URIs resolve to accessible resources?

I was actually going to propose that very thing. I think it would be highly useful. -Tim

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Atom 1.0 xml:base/URI funnies
  - From: Sjoerd Visscher
- Re: Atom 1.0 xml:base/URI funnies
  - From: Asbjørn Ulsberg

References:
- Atom 1.0 xml:base/URI funnies
  - From: Tim Bray
- Re: Atom 1.0 xml:base/URI funnies
  - From: Sam Ruby

Prev by Date: Re: Media extensions
Next by Date: Re: Media extensions
Previous by thread: Re: Atom 1.0 xml:base/URI funnies
Next by thread: Re: Atom 1.0 xml:base/URI funnies
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread