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

Re: ns3 - relative URIs

From: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 18:22:22 +0700
Message-ID: <3604E56E.275E93F5@jclark.com>
To: xml-names-issues@w3.org
I don't see how "defering to the referenced RFCs" decides the issue. 
RFC 2396 defines:

      URI-reference = [ absoluteURI | relativeURI ] [ "#" fragment ]

The term "URI" by itself means "absoluteURI".  RFC 2396 doesn't tell us
we have to allow URI references wherever we allow an absolute URI.  Just
as we needed to explicitly decide whether we want to allow fragment
identifiers, we need to decide whether we want to allow relativeURIs. I
don't remember this decision being made.  If it was, please point to the
minutes.

Dave Hollander wrote:
> 
> 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 Sunday, 20 September 1998 08:04:45 UTC

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