• To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@g...>
• Subject: Re: Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
• From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
• Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 08:17:23 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <400b54ea.40336050@s...>
• References: <4C4EB02E-4177-11D8-A4BC-000A95BA5A2C@o...> <p06010201bc22855ac223@[192.168.254.4]> <f5br7yaeoug.fsf@e...> <1073557553.6359.122.camel@delleric> <f5by8sibpmu.fsf@e...> <400b54ea.40336050@s...>
• User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i

Bjoern Hoehrmann scripsit:

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

The current draft of RFC 2396bis adopts the term "URI" generally
in the sense of "URI reference", abandoning the old distinctions.
Note that there is no BNF rule "URI" in 2396: the term "URI" is
defined informally.

-- 
You are a child of the universe no less         John Cowan
than the trees and all other acyclic            http://www.reutershealth.com
graphs; you have a right to be here.            http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
  --DeXiderata by Sean McGrath                  jcowan@r...

• 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)
  • Re: Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
    • From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@g...>

• 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