Re: [Uri-review] draft-farrell-decade-ni

[Graham Klyne <[e-mail]>]

On 08/05/2012 10:06, Eric Johnson wrote:
> Taking your point, perhaps at a minimum the proposal should document which
> hierarchical operations will yield a result with "a defined meaning according to
> the rules of the ni: scheme", and which ones won't. Especially so since the
> proposed scheme uses the "//" indicator which implies hierarchical operations,
> and we've already agreed that some such operations are meaningless.

Not quite: my original response suggested an application of this structure which 
might have useful meaning.  It's just your example that is not given a defined 
meaning by the ni: spec.

I think it's pretty clear which hierarchical operations have defined meaning: 
apply the resolution rule and see if the result has defined meaning per the 
spec.  (I suppose one might add a warning:  "Injudicious resolution of relative 
URI references with respect to an ni: base URI may yield an ni: URI whose 
interpretation is not defined by this specification.")

...

(I feel that I'm spending more time on this than the issue deserves.  I don't 
feel especially strongly that the scheme should be hierarchical or not, and 
hierarchical seems OK to me.  I mainly feel it's not worth changing a spec that 
others have thought about more deeply than I without a compelling reason.)

#g
--