• To: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
• Subject: Re: Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
• From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
• Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 07:39:57 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <1073561079.6380.157.camel@delleric>
• References: <4C4EB02E-4177-11D8-A4BC-000A95BA5A2C@o...> <p06010201bc22855ac223@[192.168.254.4]> <f5br7yaeoug.fsf@e...> <1073557553.6359.122.camel@delleric> <3FFD3505.8090503@o...> <1073561079.6380.157.camel@delleric>
• User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i

Eric van der Vlist scripsit:

> Yes, I have been to fast to answer... The only think we could object is
> that it would have been better named "URIreference" !

Actually, the anyURI type also allows non-ASCII characters, so it is
really the IRI type, but IRIs were not yet defined or even named at
that point.

-- 
John Cowan  jcowan@r...  www.reutershealth.com  www.ccil.org/~cowan
Original line from _The Warrior's Apprentice_ by Lois McMaster Bujold:
"Only on Barrayar would pulling a loaded needler start a stampede toward one."
English-to-Russian-to-English mangling thereof: "Only on Barrayar you risk to
lose support instead of finding it when you threat with the charged weapon."

• 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: Bob Foster <bob@o...>
  • Re: Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
• Next by Date: Re: Re: Cookies at XML Europe 2004 -- Call for Participation
• 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