[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Lately, in all but the most formal venues, I've been striving to use the
informal term "URL" instead of the baggage-loaded "URI".
I'm thrilled that now "URI" is becoming an informal term as well. Maybe now
we all can go back to saying "URL".
.micah
-----Original Message-----
From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan@mercury.ccil.org]
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 6:17 AM
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann
Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
Bjoern Hoehrmann scripsit:
> They rather want to change the IETF definition... See
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2003Jan/0005>.
The current draft of RFC 2396bis adopts the term "URI" generally
in the sense of "URI reference", abandoning the old distinctions.
Note that there is no BNF rule "URI" in 2396: the term "URI" is
defined informally.
--
You are a child of the universe no less John Cowan
than the trees and all other acyclic http://www.reutershealth.com
graphs; you have a right to be here. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
--DeXiderata by Sean McGrath jcowan@reutershealth.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
|
