- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:14:57 +0100
- To: Richard Tobin <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- 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>
On Monday, March 17, 2008, 4:05:34 PM, Richard wrote: >> 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. RT> Why does SVG need to talk about the LEIRIs in XLinks and xml:base RT> attributes? (Rather than just talking about the XLinks and xml:base RT> attributes themselves.) RT> If it does, and refers to them as IRIs, it won't be any more or less RT> wrong after XLink and XML Base switch to referring to LEIRIs, since RT> they are *already* LEIRIs, just not so-named. Thanks, Richard. It does indeed currently refer to them simly as IRIs, and points to RFC 3987 for the definition. It does also normatively refer to XLink; but it also says what the type of the attributes are rather than "they are whatever Xlink says" because, for one thing, we have a DOM while XLink does not specify one. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Interaction Domain Leader W3C Graphics Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Monday, 17 March 2008 15:15:51 UTC