Hm. Do you mean to say that XHTML does not understand xml:base at all? I was wrong there if that is true... I am not sure what this means for us. Does it mean that xml:base is once and for all banned from RDFa, ie, we should use the top URI as a base and that is it? I see your point on the discrepancy of HTML vs. RDFa in that aspect, I must admit, though it is a real pity... Ivan Ben Adida wrote: > > Ivan, > > Great stuff with the pyRDFa implementation. More implementations and > more feedback on tests is just great. > > I have one problem: I'm not sure we agreed that xml:base would be taken > into account here. I can't seem to find any resolution or spec that says > that it should be taken into account. > > The main issue with using xml:base is that it obviously does not affect > @href, since the HTML specification doesn't take xml:base into account. > In other words, HEAD/BASE/@href in HTML *should* affect @href, @about, > and other relative URIs, but I don't see the argument for supporting > xml:base without causing all sorts of havoc. > > -Ben > -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:15:09 GMT