- From: Dave Hollander <dmh@hpsgml.fc.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 09:16:43 -0600
- To: xml-names-issues@w3.org
I remember this discussion defering to the referenced RFCs. I don't care for allowing relative URIs, because I think relative URIs are all messed up so I remember this conversation clearly. Dan assured us that the new RFC was better and we agreed that namespaces should not interfer with the development of other web spec. Options: 1) accept it 2) start a new WG and edtorial team. are there more options? That is, is there an option that is not substantive change from the 0802 draft? Dave James wrote: >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 11:22:07 UTC