- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 10:14:44 -0500
- To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
- Cc: jones@research.att.com, xml-dist-app@w3.org
David Orchard asks: >> Could you point to the reasoning why my suggestion on >> requirement R6 was rejected? I can live without >> (and prefer to) relative URIs, but I have a tough >> time living without URI-References. I think our intention was this. On the web, resources are named with absolute URIs. For example, my web page might be named: http://example.org/noah.html A web resource is never named with a URI reference http://example.org/noah.html#somePara So, we believe parts should be named with absolute URIs, like any other web resources. As far as I know, URI References are, as the name implies, a mechanism available when you REFER to a resource. THESE WE DO INTEND TO ALLOW, as far as I know. So you can indeed when referring to my web page say: http://example.org/noah.html#somePara which means: "find the resource named http://example.org/noah.html, determine its media-type, and use that to interpret #somepara." We do intend to allow such references in a SOAP envelope, or anywhere else, but the resource is named with the absolute URI. Similarly: ./noah.html#somePara might resolve to the same document and paragraph, >if a suitable base URI is known<. If the binding or other mechanism provides such a base, then these references will be allowed too. Still, the name of the resource is the absolute name. It's the reference that's richer. Thanks. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 IBM Corporation Fax: 1-617-693-8676 One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 ------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 11 February 2003 10:17:09 UTC