W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org > January to March 2000

Re: nits with XLink & XBase

From: Eve L. Maler <elm@east.sun.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:03:16 -0500
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20000223100231.00b08540@abnaki.East.Sun.Com>
To: "Larry Masinter" <LM@att.com>
Cc: <www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org>, "Makoto MURATA" <murata.makoto@fujixerox.co.jp>, "Roy Fielding" <fielding@ics.uci.edu>
Thanks!  The 2396 vs. 1738 vs. 1808 thing is a cleanup item that I meant to 
get to, and now I won't forget.

         Eve

At 07:30 PM 2/22/00 -0800, Larry Masinter wrote:
>The date of RFC 2396 is 1998, not 1995.
>
>I think it is harmful to reference all of ([IETF RFC 2396], [IETF RFC 1738]
>and
>[IETF RFC 1808]); RFC 2396 was meant to replace and obsolete RFC 1738 and
>1808, and actually wound up redefining some terms.  I think that if you want
>to point to history you can do so in the introduction, but that normative
>references to URIs should reference 2396 only:
>
>resource: "Note that this term and its definition are taken from the basic
>   specifications governing the World Wide Web, such as IETF RFCs [IETF RFC
>2396],
>   [IETF RFC 1738] and [IETF RFC 1808]."
>
>but only one definition should be taken...
>
>"URI-reference // An optional URI ([IETF RFC 2396], [IETF RFC 1738] and
>[IETF RFC 1808]) as interpreted "
>
>but this term was defined in 2396 only.
>
>About the linking document:
>
>Note that the revision of the XML mime type definitions should reference
>the "xml base" document, since the XML base document (re)defines the
>mechanism for determining a BASE URL for its particular media type.
>So it updates RFC 2376.
>
>Larry
>--
>http://larry.masinter.net

--
Eve Maler            Sun Microsystems
elm @ east.sun.com    +1 781 442 3190
Received on Wednesday, 23 February 2000 10:01:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:39:40 GMT