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

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

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

To: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 13:52:01 +0100
Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
In-reply-to: <20040108120627.GQ31886@mercury.ccil.org>
References: <4C4EB02E-4177-11D8-A4BC-000A95BA5A2C@openhealth.org> <3ffdc130.2517580@smtp.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> <20040108120627.GQ31886@mercury.ccil.org>

* John Cowan wrote:
>To clarify, the term "URI" includes only absolute URLs and URNs, and
>excludes relative URLs as well as fragment identifiers.

Section 2 of RFC 1866 clearly distinguishes "absolute URI" ("a URI in
absolute form") and "URI" and explicitly states "URIs in common practice
include Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) and Relative URLs". Could you
please cite an RFC that clearly invalidates RFC 1866 in this regard?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [xml-dev] Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
  - From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>

References:
- Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
  - From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Re: [xml-dev] Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
  - From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Re: [xml-dev] Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
  - From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>

Prev by Date: Re: [xml-dev] Re: Cookies at XML Europe 2004 -- Call for Participation
Next by Date: Re: [xml-dev] Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
Previous by thread: Re: [xml-dev] Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
Next by thread: Re: [xml-dev] Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread