W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > April to June 2000

RE: XML Base and XPath absolutizing of URIs

From: Eve L. Maler <Eve.Maler@east.sun.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 16:55:21 -0400
Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20000613165240.00b83960@abnaki.East.Sun.Com>
To: "John Boyer" <jboyer@PureEdge.com>
Cc: "Paul Grosso" <pgrosso@arbortext.com>, "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org>, "XML DSig" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>, <Eve.Maler@east.sun.com>, <www-xpath-comments@w3.org>, <www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org>, <Daniel.Veillard@w3.org>, <connolly@w3.org>
I apologize for not being entirely caught up on this thread yet.  I do want 
to make one "side comment":

At 04:33 PM 6/8/00 -0700, John Boyer wrote:
>Yes, absolutely no problem with XBase.  The connection to XBase comes from
>the fact that XLink is considered to be dependent on XBase.  Since XLink is
>also based on XPointer, which in turn is based on XPath, one naturally
>concludes that XBase may impact XPath.

XLink is not based on XPointer; it has no dependency on it.  XLink and 
XPointer can be used entirely separately, as when you have a "third-party" 
(out-of-line) XLink extended link that associates two GIFs, or when you 
have an HTML document containing an <A HREF="..."> link into the structure 
of an XML document.

         Eve
--
Eve Maler                                    +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center    elm @ east.sun.com
Received on Tuesday, 13 June 2000 16:55:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:10:09 GMT