RE: XML Base PER--what is a URI

Why would the WG not adopt the W3C's official position on what constitutes a
URI [1] ? (which references RFC 3986 [2] )

"That is the responsibility of each XML vocabulary." seems to leave open too
much room for interpretation.

At minimum I would think the specification should include a reference to the
W3C's offcial position.

Hugh

[1] http://www.w3.org/News/2005#item13  

[2] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt

-----Original Message-----
From: www-xml-linking-comments-request@w3.org
[mailto:www-xml-linking-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Richard Tobin
Sent: September 10, 2008 12:41 PM
To: www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org
Cc: Steven Pemberton; public-forms@w3.org; Paul Grosso
Subject: Re: XML Base PER--what is a URI


>Without having discussed this response with the group yet (we shall 
>this afternoon), wouldn't the text below be exactly what the spec needs?
>
>   It would not be right for XML Base to define what strings
>   should be considered URIs.  That is entirely up to the XML
>   vocabulary in question.  This spec addresses the question:
>   *given* a relative URI, how is it resolved?

I have added a paragraph to the introduction (slightly less informally
phrased):

  This specification does not attempt to specify which strings in a
  document are considered URIs. That is the responsibility of each XML
  vocabulary. The question addressed by this specification is: given a
  relative URI in an XML document, what base URI is it resolved against?

Please let us know whether you find this satisfactory.

-- Richard

--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland,
with registration number SC005336.