- From: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 12:35:58 +0700
- To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- CC: xml-names-issues@w3.org
Tim Bray wrote: > >The WD still fails to address the issue of relative URIs. Are these > >allowed, and if so what is the base URI to be used for resolving them? > > I think the sense of the group was to allow them I don't ever remember discussing this. I remember discussing fragments but not relative URIs. Is it in the minutes anywhere? > (personally, I disagree, > so what) but that we hadn't progressed to articulating what the > base URI was. I would argue that self-evidently the rules have to > be per RFC whatever, i.e. document-relative. Is there a neat way > to say this without writing too much? What about in external entities? It rather complicates a layered processing model. James
Received on Friday, 18 September 1998 01:52:54 UTC