> Why would the WG not adopt the W3C's official position on what constitutes a > URI [1] ? (which references RFC 3986 [2] ) Oh dear. I didn't think this was so hard to explain. This isn't about the syntax of URIs, it's about whether some string you find in an XML document is intended to be interpreted as a URI. In an XSLT stylesheet, given the XPath "document('foo')", "foo" is interpreted as a URI. In the XPath "@name = 'foo'", "foo" is not interpreted as a URI. The fact that one "foo" is interpreted as a URI and the other isn't is governed by the XSLT and XPath specs. -- Richard -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.Received on Wednesday, 10 September 2008 14:12:46 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:13:58 UTC