[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: "'xml-dev@l... '" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 07:19:16 -0500
• In-reply-to: <C73FE698-4404-11D8-BEB7-000A95A51C9E@t...>

tbray@t... (Tim Bray) writes:
>You might want to check out the rewrite-in-progress at 
>http://www.apache.org/~fielding/uri/rev-2002/rfc2396bis.html which most 
>people seem to think is a substantial step forward. -Tim

I hope that it's a good cleanup of the annoying nits, but I don't think
it'll do much to improve the issues with URIs as holy writ.  

It still has all the complexities like "The fragment's format and
resolution is therefore dependent on the media type [RFC2046] of the
retrieved representation, even though such a retrieval is only performed
if the URI is dereferenced."

I do support the principle that fragments should be dependent on media
type, but find it unfortunate that so many pieces of information are
shoved into a single string.  

URLs were a great simplification when they first appeared, but I think
the ever-growing list of burdens they've been expected to carry since
that first success are more weight than a string can support.

The holy writ/hellish mess divide isn't just a matter of writing issues.

-- 
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org

• References:
  • Re: Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
• Next by Date: Re: Non-Borg servers can authenticate Borg clients (Was Re: Re: Cookies at XML Europe 2004 -- Call for Participation)
• 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