RE: xmlbase error1

On Wed, 2002-03-13 at 07:04, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
[...]
> Yes your right. I am convinced. I will switch error1 to positive.

Good; this is the conclusion Larry and I came to[Cannes] on the
basis of:

  "5.2. Resolving Relative References to Absolute Form

   [...]

   Note
   that only the scheme component is required to be present in the base
   URI; the other components may be empty or undefined."

	-- http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt

[Cannes]
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20020225-f2f/irclog-2002-02-26.html#T09-02-40

> > 
> > We seem to be sort-of generating test cases for other specifications
> > (RFC 2396, xml base) which we generally shouldn't be doing :)
> > 
> 
> 
> Hmmm... 
> 
> that's food for thought.
> 
> Jeremy
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/