W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > March 2008

Re: Transition Request: (2nd) PER Request for XML Base Second Edition

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:14:57 +0100
Message-ID: <11010086683.20080317161457@w3.org>
To: Richard Tobin <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Cc: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>, Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>, <timbl@w3.org>, <steve@w3.org>, <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>, <webreq@w3.org>, <chairs@w3.org>, <w3t-comm@w3.org>, <michelsu@microsoft.com>

On Monday, March 17, 2008, 4:05:34 PM, Richard wrote:

>> Well, thats a far cry from what Martin said. Since the primary
>> places SVG, for instance, uses IRIs is XLink (15 or so elements are
>> XLink simple links) and the other places are XML Base and ... erm,
>> can't think of any others, that means they are **all** LEIRI.

RT> Why does SVG need to talk about the LEIRIs in XLinks and xml:base
RT> attributes?  (Rather than just talking about the XLinks and xml:base
RT> attributes themselves.)

RT> If it does, and refers to them as IRIs, it won't be any more or less
RT> wrong after XLink and XML Base switch to referring to LEIRIs, since
RT> they are *already* LEIRIs, just not so-named.


Thanks, Richard. It does indeed currently refer to them simly as IRIs, and points to RFC 3987 for the definition. It does also normatively refer to XLink; but it also says what the type of the attributes are rather than "they are whatever Xlink says" because, for one thing, we have a DOM while XLink does not specify one.




-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Interaction Domain Leader
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Monday, 17 March 2008 15:15:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 17 March 2008 15:15:52 GMT