|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: URI vs. URI reference for system identifiers
* John Cowan wrote:
>Bjoern Hoehrmann scripsit:
>
>> As per RFC 2396, the difference between an URI and an URI reference is,
>> that the URI reference allows an additional fragment identifier attached
>> to the URI.
>
>A URI reference may also be relative to the current base, whereas a URI
>is always absolute. The intent here is to permit both relative and absolute
>forms, but not fragment identifiers.
I can get these two rules from RFC 2396
* URIs may be absolute or relative (absoluteURI or relativeURI)
* URI references may contain a fragment identifier
Using URI references and _disallowing_ the fragment identifier breaks
with these rules. The specification should just say
"[Definition: The SystemLiteral is called the entity's system
identifier. It is either an absolute or relative URI (as defined in
[IETF RFC 2396], updated by [IETF RFC 2732]), meant to be
dereferenced to obtain input for the XML processor to construct the
entity's replacement text.]"
Otherwise it's just abuse of the term "URI reference", connected to the
production in RFC 2396
URI-reference = [ absoluteURI | relativeURI ] [ "#" fragment ]
The WG should take it into serious consideration to clarify this in the
errata and future XML recommendations.
Anyway, thanks for your explanation.
--
Björn Höhrmann { mailto:bjoern@h... } http://www.bjoernsworld.de
am Badedeich 7 } Telefon: +49(0)4667/981028 { http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
25899 Dagebüll { PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 } http://www.learn.to/quote/
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||

Cart








