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

ns3 - relative URIs

From: Dave Hollander <dmh@hpsgml.fc.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 09:16:43 -0600
Message-Id: <199809181516.AA198291804@hpsgml.fc.hp.com>
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.


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?


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

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