OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

 


 

   Re: [xml-dev] Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 11:46, Bob Foster wrote:
> Eric van der Vlist wrote:
> > On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 11:06, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
> > 
> >>Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu> 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.
> > 
> > 
> > That makes sense, but how does that relate to the namespaces' URI
> > references, then?
> > 
> > Is that an indication that the WG did really want to allow relative URIs
> > or does "URI reference" have a different meaning in the namespaces
> > specification?
> 
> It is equally likely they wanted to allow fragment identifiers. 

Hmm... yes, of course!

> The RFC 2396 definition:
> 
> URI-reference = [ absoluteURI | relativeURI ] [ "#" fragment ]

And namespaces allow only a subset which is:

 absoluteURI [ "#" fragment ]

That makes sense.

> 
> > Also, this doesn't seem to be coherent either with WXS' definition of
> > anyURI
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502/#anyURI that says:
> > 
> > "anyURI represents a Uniform Resource Identifier Reference (URI). An
> > anyURI value can be absolute or relative..."
> > 
> > If the W3C has another definition of what are URIs and URI references
> > than the IETF which seems to be the case, shouldn't that definition be
> > used coherently in all the W3C specifications (instead of having some of
> > them use the W3C definitions and some other use the IETF one)? 
> 
> The complete paragraph in WXS is: "anyURI represents a Uniform Resource 
> Identifier Reference (URI). An anyURI value can be absolute or relative, 
> and may have an optional fragment identifier (i.e., it may be a URI 
> Reference)."
> 
> This is consistent with the IETF definition.

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

You additional explanation makes it pretty clear, Thanks.

Eric
-- 
Read me on XML.com.
                                            http://www.xml.com/pub/au/74
Upcoming XML schema languages tutorial:
 - Santa Clara  -half day- (15/03/2004)        http://masl.to/?J24916E96
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist       http://xmlfr.org            http://dyomedea.com
(ISO) RELAX NG   ISBN:0-596-00421-4 http://oreilly.com/catalog/relax
(W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema
------------------------------------------------------------------------





 

News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS