• To: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
• Subject: Re: Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
• From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
• Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 08:41:35 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <1073557553.6359.122.camel@delleric>
• References: <4C4EB02E-4177-11D8-A4BC-000A95BA5A2C@o...> <p06010201bc22855ac223@[192.168.254.4]> <f5br7yaeoug.fsf@e...><1073557553.6359.122.camel@delleric>

At 11:25 AM +0100 1/8/04, Eric van der Vlist wrote:

>That makes sense, but how does that relate to the namespaces' URI
>references, then?


No, in that case it's fragment identifiers that caused the working 
group to go with URI references rather than relative URIs. At the 
time, there was probably also some desire to use relative URIs, but 
that has since been deprecated. However, fragment IDs in namespace 
URIs are used in practice today, for instance in XML digital 
signatures (http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#) and RDF 
(http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#")
-- 

   Elliotte Rusty Harold
   elharo@m...
   Effective XML (Addison-Wesley, 2003)
   http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/effectivexml            
   http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0321150406/ref%3Dnosim/cafeaulaitA 

• 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 forParticipation
• 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