- 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
* 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 UTC