On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Andreas Rossberg <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.)
Sorry if I was unclear, I didn't mean to be making the hair-splitting point you're responding to. The point I'm making is that logical names aren't URLs, they aren't specified to be URLs, and thus treating them differently isn't a violation of the meaning of URLs. Is your contention that AMD and Node are also violating the semantics of URLs? Sam _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
