[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?

• To: "'Elliotte Rusty Harold'" <elharo@m...>,"'Jonathan Borden'" <jonathan@o...>
• Subject: RE: Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
• From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>
• Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:03:01 -0000
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <p06010201bc22855ac223@[192.168.254.4]>
• Reply-to: <michael.h.kay@n...>

> I seem to recall that the thinking was that relative URIs are only 
> URI references, not true URIs

I will never be surprised to find yet more horrors in RFC 2396, but I
certainly didn't expect anyone to tell me that the word "relative" is
not being used as an adjective to qualify the noun "URI".

The intro is pretty clear about the intent:

This document updates and merges "Uniform Resource Locators"
   [RFC1738] and "Relative Uniform Resource Locators" [RFC1808] in order
   to define a single, generic syntax for all URI. 

Whoever gave the guy his knighthood obviously never had to work with
this RFC.

Michael Kay 

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>

• References:
  • Re: Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Any hints on characterizing memory requirements of XML querystatements?
• Next by Date: Re: anyone know of good places to get opengis data?
• Previous by thread: Re: Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
• Next by thread: Re: Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread