Altova Mailing List Archives
>xml-dev Archive Home
>Thread Prev - RE: [xml-dev] Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
>Thread Next - Re: [xml-dev] Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
RE: [xml-dev] Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
Date: 1/10/2004 11:36:00 PM
michael.h.kay@n... (Michael Kay) writes: >> Hmmm.... I'm a really lazy typist creating links to a >> collection of documents with a shared base URI. I have to >> create a lot of links to a document at the base ID, and in >> fact to a particular fragid-identified location in that >> document. Since I don't want to type the fragid repeatedly, >> I drop it in the base URI and type a lot of <a href="">. >> > >That runs you into another ghastly mess in the infamous RFC 2396, >whereby zero-length relative URIs are invalid according to the syntax, >but have defined semantics, in terms of a concept called the "current >document" which appears to be distinct from the base URI but is nowhere >defined. Thanks - it's good to know that there are horrors in RFC 2396 which I have been lucky enough not to encounter (yet). RFC 2396 is a remarkable document. Holy writ and hellish mess all wrapped into one package. Separating the two is difficult, both in theory and in practice. I've stopped using the term "URI" except in cases where it is purely an identifier - namespaces and RDF are the only two places I know of where that usage feels comfortable. Otherwise I'm back to URLs. ------------- Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA http://simonstl.com may be my URI http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI urn:oid:126.96.36.199.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether