• To: Michael Kay <michael.h.kay@n...>
• Subject: Re: Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
• From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
• Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 09:16:11 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <000001c3d5f0$21652550$6401a8c0@pcukmka>
• References: <p06010201bc22855ac223@[192.168.254.4]> <000001c3d5f0$21652550$6401a8c0@pcukmka>
• User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i

Michael Kay scripsit:

> I will never be surprised to find yet more horrors in RFC 2396, but I
> certainly didn't expect anyone to tell me that the word "relative" is
> not being used as an adjective to qualify the noun "URI".

It isn't.  Relative URLs are one kind of URI reference.  "Relative URI"
is not a standardized term.

-- 
Real FORTRAN programmers can program FORTRAN    John Cowan
in any language.  --Allen Brown                 jcowan@r...

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

• References:
  • Re: Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • RE: Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
    • From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Any hints on characterizing memory requirements of XML querystatements?
• 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