Re: WD-xml-names-19980916

Tim Bray wrote:

> >The WD still fails to address the issue of relative URIs.  Are these
> >allowed, and if so what is the base URI to be used for resolving them?
> 
> I think the sense of the group was to allow them

I don't ever remember discussing this.  I remember discussing fragments
but not relative URIs.  Is it in the minutes anywhere?

> (personally, I disagree,
> so what) but that we hadn't progressed to articulating what the
> base URI was.  I would argue that self-evidently the rules have to
> be per RFC whatever, i.e. document-relative.  Is there a neat way
> to say this without writing too much?

What about in external entities?  It rather complicates a layered
processing model.

James