- From: Francois Yergeau <FYergeau@alis.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 14:26:11 -0400
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, xml-editor@w3.org
From RFC 2396, section 4:
The term "URI-reference" is used here to denote the common usage of a
resource identifier. A URI reference may be absolute or relative,
and may have additional information attached in the form of a
fragment identifier.
The system identifier may not have a fragment identifier, but it may be
relative, Therefore, it needs to be a URI reference (restricted to not
having a fragment identifier).
Regards,
--
François Yergeau
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Bjoern Hoehrmann [mailto:derhoermi@gmx.net]
> Envoyé : 9 juillet 2001 14:25
> À : xml-editor@w3.org
> Objet : Useless URI reference
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Section 4.2.2 of XML 1.0 SE defines the system identifier as a URI
> reference but says "It is an error for a fragment identifier
> (beginning
> with a # character) to be part of a system identifier". This is
> nonsense. The difference between an URI and a URI reference
> is, that the
> URI reference allows a fragment identifier to be part of the whole
> thing. The definition should read:
>
> [Definition: The SystemLiteral is called the entity's system
> identifier. It is a URI (as defined in [IETF RFC 2396], updated by
> [IETF RFC 2732]), meant to be dereferenced to obtain input
> for the XML
> processor to construct the entity's replacement text.] Unless
> otherwise provided by information outside the scope of this
> specification [...]
>
> regards,
> --
> Björn Höhrmann { mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de }
> http://www.bjoernsworld.de
> am Badedeich 7 } Telefon: +49(0)4667/981028 {
> http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
> 25899 Dagebüll { PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 }
http://www.learn.to/quote/
Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2001 14:33:16 UTC