- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 03:44:06 +0200
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>, public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
* Dan Connolly wrote:
>> I am not comfortable with the "abbreviation mechanism", see e.g.
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2004Jan/0009.html for why.
>
>There I see Fielding answering some questions about URI references.
>I don't see anything that should make one uncomfortable. Please
>elaborate or be more specific?
The effect of this change, when implemented, has no impact on the
protocol *except* when a person is deliberately abusing the base
URI by assigning it an unrelated URI for the purpose of creating
an artificial shorthand notation for external references.
If you have a SVG document at http://foo.example.org/ with
<svg:g xml:base='http://bar.example.org/d.png'>
<svg:image xlink:href='a.png' ... /><!--bar.example.org/a.png-->
<svg:image xlink:href='b.png' ... /><!--bar.example.org/b.png-->
<svg:image xlink:href='c.png' ... /><!--bar.example.org/c.png-->
<svg:image xlink:href='d.png' ... /><!--same document-->
</svg:g>
the document would be in error as the same document reference is not
allowed; base resource identifiers therefore are not simply some kind
of "abbreviation mechanism".
>No; it just re-states 5.1.4 "If none of the conditions described
>above apply, then the base URI is defined by the context of
>the application."
What about 5.1.2 and 5.1.3? It seems that this redundant part should
either be removed or more clearly state that all of 5.1 must be con-
sidered when resolving relative resource identifier references.
--
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Wednesday, 7 September 2005 01:43:43 UTC