W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-grddl-wg@w3.org > April 2007

Re: issue-base-param

From: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 09:28:32 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.1.6.2.20070418092634.08538998@mail.muzmo.com>
To: "GRDDL Working Group" <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>

Doesn't this also re-open "Faithful Infoset"?


At 03:57 PM 4/17/2007 -0400, Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:

>Just a few clarifications to my last email (in retrospect)
>
>On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 13:51 -0400, Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:
> > With XSLT 1.0, we only have a problem if there isn't an xml:base 
> attribute in the document or there is
> > an xml:base which is not absolute (as Jeremy pointed out).  If there 
> isn't an xml:base attribute, we
> > supply the baseURI of the source document as the ‚€œthe Base URI of the 
> document entity‚€œ.  This is consistent
> > with our base-param-issue resolution:
> >
> > [[[
> > RESOLVED: Given that a base URI parameter is a parameter whose value is 
> the base URI of the source document,
> > the WG RESOLVES not to define a base URI parameter for transforms.
> > ]]]
>
>The language of the resolution is a bit misleading (or at least
>confusing), but with a few replacements becomes consistent with XSLT.
>In particular if you remove the word 'parameter' wherever you see it
>then this removes the confusion with the notion of an xsl:param (an
>XPath variable binding).  This is different from providing the URI of
>the document entity as an API "parameter".
>
>In at least two XSLT 1.0 implementations that I know of (Saxon [1] and
>4Suite [2]) there is an implicit assumption that the source uri is the
>URI of the document entity (so it is an implicit API parameter).
>
> > > Do we respect xml:base attributes or not?
> >
> > If we cite XML Base normatively then it requires that we do.
>
>If you were talking about the interpretation of xml:base by our XPath
>expressions, then I was mistaken.  XML Base would only give a 'fallback'
>definition for the base URI of the document entity but no more.  Since
>XPath has it's own abstract model (which XML infoset can be mapped *to*)
>we would not be able to support XML Bases resolution with respect to an
>arbitrary element as this requires that the nodes in the model each have
>a notion of a Base URI which can be 'inherited' down the hierarchy.
>
>So, any use of xml:base in a GRDDL source document (by GRDDL source
>document I mean the document against which the XPath expressions in the
>normative green boxes are evaluated) would be disregarded and the XML
>Base / RFC 2396 chain would begin with the assumption that there was no
>base URI embedded in the document's content:
>
>4.1 Relation to RFC 2396
>
>      2. The base URI is that of the encapsulating entity (message,
>         document, or none).
>
>      3. The base URI is the URI used to retrieve the entity.
>
>      4. The base URI is defined by the context of the application.
>
>
>4.2 Granularity of base URI information
>
>   3. the base URI of the document entity or external entity containing
>the element.
>
>
>[1] http://saxon.sourceforge.net/saxon7.2/using-xsl.html
>[2] http://4suite.org/docs/CoreManual.xml#base_URIs
>
>--
>Chimezie Ogbuji
>Lead Systems Analyst
>Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
>Cleveland Clinic Foundation
>9500 Euclid Avenue/ W26
>Cleveland, Ohio 44195
>Office: (216)444-8593
>ogbujic@ccf.org
>
>
>===================================
>
>
>
>
>Cleveland Clinic is ranked one of the top 3 hospitals in
>America by U.S.News & World Report. Visit us online at
>http://www.clevelandclinic.org for a complete listing of
>our services, staff and locations.
>
>
>Confidentiality Note:  This message is intended for use
>only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed
>and may contain information that is privileged,
>confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable
>law.  If the reader of this message is not the intended
>recipient or the employee or agent responsible for
>delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are
>hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
>copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If
>you have received this communication in error,  please
>contact the sender immediately and destroy the material in
>its entirety, whether electronic or hard copy.  Thank you.
Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2007 13:39:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:48 GMT