W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-names-issues@w3.org > July to September 1998

ns3 - relative URIs

From: Dave Hollander <dmh@hpsgml.fc.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 09:16:43 -0600
Message-Id: <199809181516.AA198291804@hpsgml.fc.hp.com>
To: xml-names-issues@w3.org

I remember this discussion defering to the referenced RFCs. I don't
care for allowing relative URIs, because I think relative URIs are all
messed up so I remember this conversation clearly. Dan assured us that
the new RFC was better and we agreed that namespaces should not interfer
with the development of other web spec.

Options:

1) accept it
2) start a new WG and edtorial team.

are there more options? That is, is there an option that is not substantive
change from the 0802 draft?

Dave

James wrote:
>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.
>
Received on Friday, 18 September 1998 11:22:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:43:30 UTC