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: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 06:39:40 -0400
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
Message-ID: <20040804103937.GG24080@homer.w3.org>

* Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com> [2004-08-04 11:29+0100]
> 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)

(You didn't miss anything relevant to this sub-topic).
 
> 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.

Thanks Jeremy. I'd forgotten that decision had been formalised to that
extent, was remembering it more as 'best practice' convention. So it
wasn't a trick question.

Dan
Received on Wednesday, 4 August 2004 06:39:48 GMT

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