[whatwg] URIs vs. URI references (and IRIs vs. IRI references)

[L. David Baron]

The wording of the value of href for base elements [1] is not quite
the same as the wording for anchor elements [2], and technically [3]
that wording allows only absolute URIs.  They should probably both
say they allow URI references (or IRI references), and the former
should probably say "be" or "equal" rather than the rather vague
"contain".  (I suspect there are similar problems elsewhere.)

Or, if you don't like using the term "URI reference" everywhere
(which may be worth avoiding), you should at least explain your
usage in the Terminology section with reference to terms defined in
the URI/IRI RFCs.

-David

[1] http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#href
[2] http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#href5
[3] ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3986.txt
    ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3987.txt

-- 
L. David Baron                                <URL: http://dbaron.org/ >
           Technical Lead, Layout & CSS, Mozilla Corporation
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20070313/2d4fc837/attachment.pgp>