Module naming and declarations

Sam Tobin-Hochstadt samth at ccs.neu.edu
Tue May 7 14:50:56 PDT 2013


On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Andreas Rossberg <rossberg at google.com> wrote:
> On 7 May 2013 21:17, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <samth at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Andreas Rossberg <rossberg at google.com> 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


More information about the es-discuss mailing list