[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...>
• Subject: Re: Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
• From: ht@c... (Henry S. Thompson)
• Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 10:06:47 +0000
• Cc: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@o...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <p06010201bc22855ac223@[192.168.254.4]> (Elliotte RustyHarold's message of "Wed, 7 Jan 2004 23:00:00 -0500")
• References: <4C4EB02E-4177-11D8-A4BC-000A95BA5A2C@o...><p06010201bc22855ac223@[192.168.254.4]>
• User-agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) XEmacs/21.4 (Rational FORTRAN, linux)

Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...> writes:

> At 8:09 PM -0500 1/7/04, Jonathan Borden wrote:
>> Does anyone here know the reasoning behind this? In specific, why
>> does xml:base allow URI references (i.e. with fragment identifiers)
>> rather than simply using URIs (URIrefs sans fragment identifiers)?
>
> I seem to recall that the thinking was that relative URIs are only URI
> references, not true URIs; and URI references were used to enable
> this, not to enable fragment identifiers.

That's my belief also.  IIRC, the RFC defines URI to be what you and I
would call an absolute URI.

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

• 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...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Formalism and complexity
• 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