- From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
- Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 17:36:47 -0400
- To: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>, <xml-uri@w3.org>
Tim Berners-Lee wrote: > > > That is why relative URIs are excluded. > If no relative URIs are used, then red and green algorithms match. > I can see no alternative as there seems to be a resistance on this list to > absolutizing relative URIs. > > ... > >Tim Berners-Lee wrote: > >> > >> XPath does not need to be re-issued as it will interwork, as relative > >> URIs are excluded. Software which absolutizes the URI-reference > >> and uses the URI will be legal. So will software which compares as > >> strings. Yes, it is is a compromise. > >> > > Perhaps I'm confused about terminology. The previous/lower statement discussed absolutizing URI-references... doesn't this imply relative-URIs? The following statemtent "So will software which compares as strings." is also about relative URIs? There also exists a red/green problem with absolutization. It depends on whether a parser implements XBase. A document which is parsed using an XBase conformant parser might not be well formed (red XML), while the same document parsed with a current parser will be well formed (green XML). The red/green problem is my (show stopper) problem with absolutization. Jonathan Borden
Received on Saturday, 3 June 2000 17:49:41 UTC