Talk:relative URL

RFD
These seem very much SoP... 19:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And also rather poorly defined. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, many of them seem either wrong or defined poorly enough that I genuinely can't understand them. Basically check EVERYTHING by . Mglovesfun (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We do need better definitions at absolute and relative though. It seems like both of them already have some senses relating to 'dependent' or 'independent' of context. I wanted to group all of those senses of absolute together, and add the computing sense to that as a subsense, but that group of senses meaning 'independent of context' would include the grammatical definition that's already there, which would then create sub-sub-senses. Is that desirable? 21:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep all, but the definitions need a lot of improvement. There's no way of knowing which of the dozen meanings of absolute or relative is combined with URL. Context is needed also.--Dmol (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But there is nothing idiomatic about this if we consider other combinations. There are also relative and absolute paths, relative and absolute XPath expressions and so on. All of these uses make use of the same two definitions of relative and absolute that are common throughout computer science, when talking about references in a hierarchial or tree-like structure. 22:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. The only useful info with these is which of the adjectives is meant, but as soon as you know it's a computing term, it's obvious which one. Absolute and relative are well-known terms in defining any kind of path, whether it's a 1980s MS-DOS path to a file on disk, or a modern path within an XML document, or any number of other things. As with so many of our pseudo-technical entries, we just need good adj definitions at absolute and relative, rather than adding a zillion possible collocations &mdash; and trust me, there are very many that we could cite. Equinox ◑ 23:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Dmol, words/terms appear in context in the real world, where we define them in isolation. So the context comes from the real world. Also, since relative and absolute have so many meanings, would we allow any combination of words with these two words? If so, why even bother having entries for absolute and relative, should we delete the English definitions of these two and have people simply look up two word terms? Having entries for every two word term that might be ambiguous seems to defeat the whole premise of a dictionary, to look up words/terms one doesn't understand. To be honest Dmol I think I'm wasting my time as your argument has been consistently rejected by the majority of Wiktionary users at least since I started editing here in 2009. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is a no-brainer. I've added the relevant sense to [[relative]]. —Ruakh TALK 14:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 22:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)