- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 19:29:55 +0200
- To: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
- Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, <semantic-web@w3.org>, <www-international@w3.org>
On Thursday, April 19, 2007, 5:14:49 PM, John wrote: JC> Note: I'm a member of the XML Core WG, which owns the XML Base spec, JC> and I may speak in accordance with my best recollection of things JC> discussed there when making statements about intentions. However, JC> I don't speak for the WG. And I am equally drawing on recollections of a working lunch at the Tech Plenary, with Paul Grosso and others, where the notion that the infoset property for the base URI 'represented a URI' rather than 'contained a URI' and thus, was compatible with IRIs, was discussed. I agree that the term IRI is a more recent coinage than many of the specifications which allowed a wider range of non-ASCII characters to 'represent URIs' after escaping. I disagree with your assertion that simply using XML Base (without dereferencing) forces a hexification. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Interaction Domain Leader Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Friday, 20 April 2007 17:30:35 UTC