- From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
- Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:49:30 -0400
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>, Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>, timbl@w3.org, steve@w3.org, public-xml-core-wg@w3.org, webreq@w3.org, chairs@w3.org, w3t-comm@w3.org, michelsu@microsoft.com
Chris Lilley scripsit:
> Well, thats a far cry from what Martin said. Since the primary places
> SVG, for instance, uses IRIs is XLink (15 or so elements are XLink
> simple links) and the other places are XML Base and ... erm, can't
> think of any others, that means they are **all** LEIRI.
Well, yes, transitively. For that matter, *any* XML document (okay,
except SOAP ones) can contain a DOCTYPE declaration, and therefore can
contain LEIRIs. But I am talking about which specifications should
mention LEIRIs.
If SVG inherits its links from XLink and its base URI specifier from XML
Base, then SVG documents can contain LEIRIs. But that doesn't mean that
SVG should *specify* LEIRIs. Nor does it mean that a spec which refers
*directly* to URIs or IRIs should be made to refer to LEIRIs, either.
That last is the key point.
--
"The serene chaos that is Courage, and the phenomenon cowan@ccil.org
of Unopened Consciousness have been known to the John Cowan
Great World eons longer than Extaboulism."
"Why is that?" the woman inquired.
"Because I just made that word up", the Master said wisely.
--Kehlog Albran, The Profit http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Received on Monday, 17 March 2008 14:50:21 UTC