• To: ht@c... (Henry S. Thompson)
• Subject: Re: Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
• From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@g...>
• Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 14:03:13 +0100
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <f5by8sibpmu.fsf@e...>
• References: <4C4EB02E-4177-11D8-A4BC-000A95BA5A2C@o...> <p06010201bc22855ac223@[192.168.254.4]> <f5br7yaeoug.fsf@e...> <1073557553.6359.122.camel@delleric> <f5by8sibpmu.fsf@e...>

* Henry S. Thompson wrote:
>> If the W3C has another definition of what are URIs and URI references
>> than the IETF
>
>It doesn't.

They rather want to change the IETF definition... See
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2003Jan/0005>.

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

• 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...>
  • Re: Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
    • From: ht@c... (Henry S. Thompson)

• Prev by Date: Re: Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
• 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