• From: "Andrew S. Townley" <ast@a...>
• To: XML Developers List <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 08:22:44 +0200

Had originally intended to send to the whole list.

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: "Andrew S. Townley" <ast@a...>
> Subject: Re:  xml:base and fragments
> Date: May 11, 2017 at 10:03:36 PM GMT+2
> To: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@b...>
> 
> 
>> On May 11, 2017, at 7:35 PM, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@b...> wrote:
>> 
>> It begins to look as if the entire discussion has not been about any
>> substantive issue at all, but only about your objection to words you 
>> put into my mouth.
> 
> I was actually trying to push for clarification as to why what I said seemed to dance on the edge of a similar, shared understanding and then ultimately veer off at the last moment.
> 
> The only thing where it seems we actually disagreed – and still seem to at some level – is regarding the premise that a given resource fragment could have more than one dereferenceable URI in the presence of a base URI defined within the resource content and still be conformant with the wording of RFC 3986.
> 
> From my side, as I said before, I appreciate the discussion as it was both interesting and useful in expanding the depth of my own understanding of the RFC in the attempt to help clarify a point on behalf of someone else regarding xml:base.  Hopefully, it also somehow assisted in resolving the original TEI issue at some point along the way,
> 
> Many thanks for your participation and engagement.
> 
>> 
>> I think we’re done now.
> 
> Yep.
> 
> --
> Andrew S. Townley <ast@a...>
> http://atownley.org
> 

--
Andrew S. Townley <ast@a...>
http://atownley.org