Re: nits with XLink & XBase

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