W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > August 2004

Re: On xml:base [was RE: XHTML 2.0 metainfo question (Correction!!!)]

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 11:29:02 +0100
Message-ID: <4110BA6E.6040303@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
Cc: "'Dan Brickley'" <danbri@w3.org>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org

Mark Birbeck wrote:

> Dan,
> 
> 
>>iv)  xml:base, relative URIs in ns declarations etc?
>>
>>eg. test case:
>>
>><link xmlns:foaf="/foaf/0.1/" xml:base="http://xmlns.com/" 
>>rel="foaf:maker">
>>  <meta property="foaf:name">Dan Brickley</meta>
>>  <link property="foaf:homepage" resource="http://danbri.org/"/>
>>  <link rel="foaf:knows">
>>    <meta property="foaf:name">Dan Connolly</meta>
>>  </link>
>></link>
>>
>>...does this generate the same triples?
> 
> 
> Namespaces are not currently regarded as being relative to xml:base,
> although XML Base does leave things open for applications to 'honour'
> xml:base at some higher level if they want to. However, I suggest we don't
> go that route ;). We should of course make @about and @resource behave
> according to xml:base, though.
> 
> So, to answer the question, I would say that your XML Base example should
> *not* generate the same triples as the first example.

(I've not read the earlier thread)

This xml:base example is simply illegal - namespace declarations must be 
absolute - (a plenary decision). See errata of Namespaces in XML 1.0 or 
Namespaces 1.1.

It generates an error and no triples.

Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 4 August 2004 06:29:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:14:59 GMT