At 8:09 PM -0500 1/7/04, Jonathan Borden wrote:
>Does anyone here know the reasoning behind this? In specific, why
>does xml:base allow URI references (i.e. with fragment identifiers)
>rather than simply using URIs (URIrefs sans fragment identifiers)?
I seem to recall that the thinking was that relative URIs are only
URI references, not true URIs; and URI references were used to enable
this, not to enable fragment identifiers. But I'm not a working group
member so take that with a grain of salt. (Personally I don't think
RFC 2396 says that relative URIs are not members of the set of all
URIs, but the W3C working groups certainly believe this.)
--
Elliotte Rusty Harold
Effective XML (Addison-Wesley, 2003)
http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/effectivexml
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0321150406/ref%3Dnosim/cafeaulaitA
