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 CGReceived 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