W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > March 2002

Re: Summary: Section 2: What does a URI identify?

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 19:14:27 -0500
Message-ID: <021c01c1cedb$0a8d5a00$0a2e249b@nemc.org>
To: <www-tag@w3.org>, "Paul Grosso" <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Paul Grosso wrote:
>
> However, you are talking about empty URI references which isn't
> the current topic.
>
> Instead, read the appropriate part about "5.2. Resolving Relative
> References to Absolute Form".  Specifically, the second step of
> the algorithm:
>
>   2) If the path component is empty and the scheme, authority, and
>       query components are undefined, then it is a reference to the
>       current document and we are done.
>
> I don't find that ambiguous at all.
>

Where do I talk about "relative URI references"? I am specifically talking
about fragment identifiers and in this case bare fragment identifiers.

For something so unambiguous, I see nothing prohibiting me from taking a
bare fragment identifier and prepending the base URI in order to form an
absolute URI reference. There is no argument that bare fragment identifiers
not identify "things" in the current document -- and prior to xml:base
everything in the current document had the same base URI.

On the other hand you seem to be suggesting that applications written before
XML Base (e.g. RDF) ought change their behavior to ensure that browsers
always reference bare fragment identifiers to the current document, despite
the current xml:base.

As has been mentioned, RDF Core is dealing with xml:base (in the RDF
update). The test cases available at:
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/xmlbase/ suggest that RDF is
intended to behave as I have said.

Jonathan
Received on Monday, 18 March 2002 19:17:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:05 GMT