[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Bjoern Hoehrmann scripsit:
> * Jonathan Borden wrote:
> >[W]hy does
> >xml:base allow URI references (i.e. with fragment identifiers) rather
> >than simply using URIs (URIrefs sans fragment identifiers)?
To clarify, the term "URI" includes only absolute URLs and URNs, and
excludes relative URLs as well as fragment identifiers. All of these
are allowed in URI references. We wanted it to be possible to set
xml:base to something like "..".
> XML 1.0 uses URI References for system identifiers and forbids fragment
> identifiers, that's way more weird...
A fragment identifier attached to a URI that points to an XML document
has no defined meaning, and even if it did, we didn't want to burden
XML processors with XPointer processors just for loading parts of
external entities, especially since an external entity isn't necessarily
well-formed XML by itself. Forbidding fragment identifiers helps
interoperability.
--
The man that wanders far jcowan@reutershealth.com
from the walking tree http://www.reutershealth.com
--first line of a non-existent poem by: John Cowan
|
