[
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
