• To: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@o...>
• Subject: Re: Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
• From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
• Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 23:00:00 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <4C4EB02E-4177-11D8-A4BC-000A95BA5A2C@o...>
• References: <4C4EB02E-4177-11D8-A4BC-000A95BA5A2C@o...>

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. But I'm not a working group 
member so take that with a grain of salt. (Personally I don't think 
RFC 2396 says that relative URIs are not members of the set of all 
URIs, but the W3C working groups certainly believe this.)
-- 

   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

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
    • From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>
  • 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...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Re: Cookies at XML Europe 2004 -- Call forParticipation
• Next by Date: Re: Formalism and complexity
• 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