W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org > October to December 2008

RE: XML Base PER--what is a URI

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 09:44:53 -0500
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D3020D772F40@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: "Steven Pemberton" <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
Cc: <www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org>

Steven,

At
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2008OctDec/
0008
Richard indicated that he added a note along the lines you suggest.

Do you now accept our disposition of your comment?

paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven Pemberton [mailto:steven.pemberton@cwi.nl] 
> Sent: Wednesday, 2008 November 05 7:22
> To: Grosso, Paul
> Cc: www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org; Henry S. Thompson
> Subject: Re: XML Base PER--what is a URI
> 
> Paul,
> 
> Many thanks for your reply.
> 
> The XHTML2 WG has discussed it.
> 
> > It would not be right for XML Base to define what strings
> > should be considered URIs.  That is entirely up to the XML
> > vocabulary in question.  This spec addresses the question:
> > *given* a relative URI, how is it resolved?  It thus fills
> > the role described in RFC 3986 section 5.1.1: it specifies
> > how a base URI can be embedded in XML content.
> 
> This is exactly what we hoped to hear, and weren't able to 
> resolve from  
> the spec. We are happy that this is the case, but would be 
> happier if the  
> spec made it explicit. We are therefore not asking for a 
> change, just a  
> clarification that what this spec refers to as a URI is not 
> necessarily  
> syntactically a URI, but whatever the referring spec decides 
> should be  
> treated as one.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Steven Pemberton
> For the XHTML2 WG
> 
> On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 18:31:25 +0200, Grosso, Paul 
> <pgrosso@ptc.com> wrote:
> 
> > Thank you for your comments at
> > 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2
> 008AprJun/
> > 0011
> > on the XML Base Second Edition PER.
> >
> > Regarding:
> >
> >> It is not clear from the spec about what is
> >> permitted to be considered a URI in a host
> >> language. The spec refers to URIs everywhere,
> >> without exactly specifying what qualifies. In
> >> particular we hope that XML Base may be used at
> >> any point some value is interpreted as a relative
> >> URI/IRI, even if that value isn't a URI per se.
> >
> > The XML Core WG has reviewed this comment and decided not
> > to make any change to XML Base Second Edition with the
> > following explanation:
> >
> > It would not be right for XML Base to define what strings
> > should be considered URIs.  That is entirely up to the XML
> > vocabulary in question.  This spec addresses the question:
> > *given* a relative URI, how is it resolved?  It thus fills
> > the role described in RFC 3986 section 5.1.1: it specifies
> > how a base URI can be embedded in XML content.
> >
> >
> > See also
> > 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2
> 008JulSep/
> > 0000
> > and
> > 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2
> 008JulSep/
> > 0006
> > for previous reponses.
> >
> >
> > We hope to transition XML Base to Recommendation within
> > the next few weeks.  Please let us know if you accept
> > our disposition of this comment as soon as feasible.
> > If we have not heard by September 22, we will assume
> > you have no objection to our resolution.
> >
> > Paul Grosso
> > for the XML Core WG
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 19 November 2008 14:46:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:08:18 UTC