W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-names-issues@w3.org > July to September 1998

Re: WD-xml-names-19980916

From: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 12:35:58 +0700
Message-ID: <3601F13E.FEECEEB7@jclark.com>
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.

Received on Friday, 18 September 1998 01:52:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:13:38 UTC