Lists Home |
Date Index |
Elliotte Rusty Harold <email@example.com> writes:
> At 8:09 PM -0500 1/7/04, Jonathan Borden wrote:
>> Does anyone here know the reasoning behind this? In specific, why
>> does xml:base allow URI references (i.e. with fragment identifiers)
>> rather than simply using URIs (URIrefs sans fragment identifiers)?
> I seem to recall that the thinking was that relative URIs are only URI
> references, not true URIs; and URI references were used to enable
> this, not to enable fragment identifiers.
That's my belief also. IIRC, the RFC defines URI to be what you and I
would call an absolute URI.
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
Half-time member of W3C Team
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]