• To: "'John Cowan'" <cowan@m...>
• Subject: RE: Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
• From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>
• Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:28:35 -0000
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <20040108141606.GA5642@m...>
• Reply-to: <michael.h.kay@n...>

> 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.

You have to be joking.

Why does RFC 2396 use a non-standardized term 28 times?

Michael Kay

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

• 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