W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org > January to March 2006

RE: XLink 1.1: 5.4 "URI reference" unclear

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 13:45:33 -0500
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D302022BE770@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "Webb Roberts" <webb.roberts@gtri.gatech.edu>
Cc: <www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org>, "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net>

 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de] 
> Sent: Wednesday, 2006 January 25 14:31
> To: Webb Roberts
> Cc: Grosso, Paul; www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org; Bjoern Hoehrmann
> Subject: Re: XLink 1.1: 5.4 "URI reference" unclear
> 
> Webb Roberts wrote:
> > 
> > On 1/25/2006 Grosso, Paul wrote:
> >> The XML Core WG reconsidered the issue and had consensus to
> >> stick with the better-known term "relative URI".  
> > 
> > Is there a normative definition available for "relative 
> URI"?  It seems 
> > that it was defined in RFC 2396, which is explicitly 
> obsoleted by RFC 
> > 3986.  It would seem preferrable to go with the term 
> "relative reference 
> > to a URI" as defined in RFC 3986.
> > ...
> 
> +1.
> 
> The term is obsoleted, so please use what RFC3986 does.

Bjoern, Webb, Julian,

The XML Core WG now plans to replace the wording (LC WD):

  If the URI reference is relative, its absolute version
  must be computed by the method of [XML Base] before use.

which is currently in the lastest editor's draft as:

  If the value of the href attribute is a relative URI, or
  results in a relative URI after escaping, its absolute
  version must be computed by the method of [XML Base] before use.

with:

  If the value of the href attribute is a relative reference
  (as defined in [RFC 3986], also known as "relative URI" in 
  earlier RFCs), or results in a relative reference after
  escaping, its absolute version must be computed by the
  method of [XML Base] before use.

If we don't hear to the contrary before February 15, 
we will assume this change adequately addresses
your concerns with respect to this comment.

paul
Received on Wednesday, 1 February 2006 18:49:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:39:46 GMT