headers
Collin Hsu | 4 Aug 2004 18:47
Picon

All "URIs" are also "Absolute URIs", and thus "URI references" ?


According to RFC 2396, a URI reference is of the form as follow, 

        Absolute URI | Relative URI  [ fragment identifier ]

As a result,  if all URIs can ben identified as "absolute URI", then all
URIs can also be called "URI references". 

So comes the problem as given in the subject of this mail. 

Thank you for your comment!

Cheers, 
Collin
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
John Cowan | 4 Aug 2004 19:58
Favicon

Re: [xml-dev] All "URIs" are also "Absolute URIs", and thus "URI references" ?


Collin Hsu scripsit:
> According to RFC 2396, a URI reference is of the form as follow, 
> 
>         Absolute URI | Relative URI  [ fragment identifier ]
> 
> As a result,  if all URIs can ben identified as "absolute URI", then all
> URIs can also be called "URI references". 

The term "URI", as opposed to "absolute URI", "relative URI", and "URI reference",
is not formally defined by RFC 2396.  Its proposed successor does define the term.

--

-- 
They do not preach                              John Cowan
  that their God will rouse them                jcowan <at> reutershealth.com
    A little before the nuts work loose.        http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
They do not teach                               http://www.reutershealth.com
  that His Pity allows them                         --Rudyard Kipling,
    to drop their job when they damn-well choose.   "The Sons of Martha"
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Bill Kearney | 17 Aug 2004 18:13

Re: Re: Resolving NameSpace Conflicts

> I can provide a specific example Bill but won't be doing that
> as I am an interested party in an evolving concern and do not
> want to compromise the client's interests.

Nope, doesn't cut it.  You propose an argument but don't back it up with an
effective example.   I understand the question of a client being concerned about
evolving concerns.  I deal with DC lawyers a fair bit and I understand the idea.
That said when asking for opinions it's customary to present a carefully crafted
'example' that effectively demonstrates the underlying issue.

> I hope we can
> simply agree that a markup language can be copyrighted and
> using its namespace is a means to reuse that markup language
> to extend other markup languages.

I'm not entirely sure I agree.

What's the crux of what they "think" is something they can own?  The prefix
"whatever:" on elements?  The namespace identifier used in an xmlns attribute?
What's the goal here?  To jealously guard and prevent others from using their
coveted prefix and/or namespace?  Puh-leeze, what's the point of interop then?
Why bother with XML at all?

This is a conversation perhaps better held over in the xml-dev mailing list.

While I sympathize with notions about control over usage I'm skeptical of the
motivations anytime I hear it discussed.

> Thanks for pointing out that it is okay to excerpt. I can't
> stand the scrolling and other baggage that comes with using
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jason Diamond | 25 Aug 2004 06:42

SSYN: Alternative to data-centric XML and YAML

Hi.

I'm working on a simpler alternative than YAML for data-centric XML.

A draft specification, test suite, and implementation are available at:

http://injektilo.org/ssyn/

The prototype is implemented in Python and is pretty close to being 
complete but I'm looking for others who might want to work on 
implementations in other languages and also help flush out issues with 
the spec.

Thanks.

-- Jason

-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by Shop4tech.com-Lowest price on Blank Media
100pk Sonic DVD-R 4x for only $29 -100pk Sonic DVD+R for only $33
Save 50% off Retail on Ink & Toner - Free Shipping and Free Gift.
http://www.shop4tech.com/z/Inkjet_Cartridges/9_108_r285
Permalink | Reply | 17 comments |

Gmane