On 7 May 2013 21:17, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Andreas Rossberg <[email protected]> wrote: >> In particular, as I mentioned before, you _cannot_ make "a" mean >> something different than "./a" without violating URLs [1,2]. Yet that >> is not only what you envision, it is what you de facto _prescribe_ >> with your proposal. I think that's simply a total no-go. >> >> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-4.2 >> [2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-5.2.2 > > No, this is not correct. Neither "a" not "./a" are URLs, and thus > treating them differently does not violate the semantics of URLs.
[Quick reply only, will address the rest of your mail tomorrow.] Come on Sam, now you're really splitting hairs. Fine, technically it's called a "URI reference" [3] -- and in practically all places on the web where you reference a URL you are doing so using such a beast. You seriously want to divorce yourself from the rest of the web? (Except, of course, that you still want to allow those URI references as URI references that e.g. start with a "." -- really, this whole idea is highly schizophrenic.) [3] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-4.1 /Andreas _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
