[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: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
• Subject: Re: Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
• From: ht@c... (Henry S. Thompson)
• Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 12:18:01 +0000
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <1073557553.6359.122.camel@delleric> (Eric van der Vlist'smessage of "Thu, 08 Jan 2004 11:25:54 +0100")
• References: <4C4EB02E-4177-11D8-A4BC-000A95BA5A2C@o...><p06010201bc22855ac223@[192.168.254.4]><f5br7yaeoug.fsf@e...><1073557553.6359.122.camel@delleric>
• User-agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) XEmacs/21.4 (Rational FORTRAN, linux)

Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...> writes:

> Is that an indication that the WG did really want to allow relative URIs

Yes.
> or does "URI reference" have a different meaning in the namespaces
> specification?

No.

> Also, this doesn't seem to be coherent either with WXS' definition of
> anyURI
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502/#anyURI that says:
>
> "anyURI represents a Uniform Resource Identifier Reference (URI). An
> anyURI value can be absolute or relative..."

What's the problem here -- is it the use of '(URI)' -- I guess this
should have been (URI reference).

> If the W3C has another definition of what are URIs and URI references
> than the IETF

It doesn't.

ht
-- 
  Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
                      Half-time member of W3C Team
     2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
	    Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@c...
		     URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
 [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
    • From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@g...>
  • Re: Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
    • From: ht@c... (Henry S. Thompson)

• References:
  • Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@o...>
  • Re: Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
    • From: ht@c... (Henry S. Thompson)
  • Re: Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Re: Cookies at XML Europe 2004 -- Call for Participation
• Next by Date: Re: Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
• 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