At 00:32 05/01/26, Eric Scheid wrote: > >On 26/1/05 2:16 AM, "Anne van Kesteren" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Since aggregators already have to support xml:base it would be logical >> to make that a relative URI. > >A relative URI would only be useful if there is in fact an xml:base in >effect. With no xml:base then the relative reference would be useless.
That's pretty obvious, and applies to all other links. If we want to point that out in the Atom spec, it should be done in the section that talks about xml:base.
>We could either write some spec text for that unusual requirement, or we >could write "MUST be absolute". Simplicity.
Again, that would apply to all other links, and would mean that we would get rid of xml:base. -1 on that from me. Treating all URIs/IRIs intended for resolution the same way is simplicity, too.
Regards, Martin.
