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

Re: HTML WG comment on XML Base

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 09:28:31 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.32.20000710093157.00df8238@pophost.arbortext.com>
To: "Steven Pemberton" <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>, <www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org>
At 13:40 2000 07 05 -0500, Paul Grosso wrote:
>At 15:24 2000 07 05 +0200, Steven Pemberton wrote:
>>XML base uses RFC 2396 to define how relative URLs are resolved.
>
>>This appears to be an RFC1808 vs. RFC2396 issue.  A quick look at 1808 shows
>>that the algorithm for resolving references required that the URL returned
>>be the same as the base in this case. So it seems to be a non-interoperable
>>change between the two RFCs.
>
>This appears to be the case.  However, I do think it necessary for
>XML Base (and XPointer and other specs currently being written) to
>use RFC 2396--rather than a spec that it has superceded--as its
>normative reference.

For the record, this change is documented in appendix G of RFC 2396:

  G.4. Modifications from RFC 1808

   RFC 1808 (Section 4) defined an empty URL reference (a reference
   containing nothing aside from the fragment identifier) as being a
   reference to the base URL.  Unfortunately, that definition could be
   interpreted, upon selection of such a reference, as a new retrieval
   action on that resource.  Since the normal intent of such references
   is for the user agent to change its view of the current document to
   the beginning of the specified fragment within that document, not to
   make an additional request of the resource, a description of how to
   correctly interpret an empty reference has been added in Section 4.

   . . .

paul
Received on Monday, 10 July 2000 12:28:27 GMT

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