• To: ht@c... (Henry S. Thompson)
• Subject: Re: Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
• From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@o...>
• Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 09:54:52 -0500
• Cc: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <f5bu136bpf4.fsf@e...>
• References: <4C4EB02E-4177-11D8-A4BC-000A95BA5A2C@o...> <p06010201bc22855ac223@[192.168.254.4]> <f5br7yaeoug.fsf@e...> <1073557553.6359.122.camel@delleric> <f5by8sibpmu.fsf@e...> <f5bu136bpf4.fsf@e...>

Henry S. Thompson wrote:

> ht@c... (Henry S. Thompson) writes:
>
>> Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...> writes:
>>
>>> Is that an indication that the WG did really want to allow relative 
>>> URIs
>>
>> Yes.
>
> Oops -- should be 'No' -- it's there to allow absolute+fragid.

I am entirely missing the logic behind wanting to allow a fragid in a 
base URI.

Jonathan

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• 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: ht@c... (Henry S. Thompson)

• Prev by Date: Re: Expertise and Innovation - was Re: Non-Borg servers can authenticate Borg clients (Was 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