- 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