W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > June 2010

Re: Fragments in <base href>

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 13:10:22 -0500
Message-ID: <4C20FC8E.1000706@aptest.com>
To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
CC: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
RDFa Syntax 1.0 [1] says:

    Since RDFa is ultimately a means for transporting RDF, then a key
    concept is the /resource/ and its manifestation as a URI. Since RDF
    deals with complete URIs (not relative paths), then when converting
    RDFa to triples, any relative URIs will need to be resolved relative
    to the base URI, using the algorithm defined in section 5 of RFC
    3986 [URI <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#ref_URI>], /Reference
    Resolution/.

I'm not sure that really addresses the basic issue though.  We also 
defer to the definition of the base element from XHTML M12N, which in 
turn defers to the definition of the base element from HTML 4.01 [2] 
which states, in part :

    href = /uri/ <http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/types.html#type-uri> [CT]
    <http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/types.html#see-type-for-case>
        This attribute specifies an absolute URI that acts as the base
        URI for resolving relative URIs.


So.... base must be an absolute URI and, according to 3986 [3] section 
5.2, and in particular the algorithm in section 5.2.2, it is clear that 
any fragment is not included in the base.

Hope this helps.


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#s_curieprocessing
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/links.html#edef-BASE
[3] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt

On 6/22/2010 8:30 AM, Mark Birbeck wrote:
> Hi Toby,
>
> It's this one:
>
>    <>  xhv:test<>  .
>
> You get the base path by creating an absolute path based on the value
> in 'base'. And even if the base URI has a fragment identifier, the
> fragment identifier is dropped.
>
> I.e.,:
>
>    assert.areEqual(
>      absolute("http://example.net/#foo", ""),
>      "http://example.net/"
>    );
>
> This is definitely mentioned in the RDFa 1.0 spec, although I don't
> have time to look for it at the moment.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mark
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Toby Inkster<tai@g5n.co.uk>  wrote:
>    
>> So how is the following to be interpreted?
>>
>>         <html>
>>                 <head rel=":test" resource="">
>>                         <base href="http://example.net/#foo" />
>>                 </head>
>>         </html>
>>
>> I can imagine arguments in favour of:
>>
>>         <#foo>  xhv:test<>  .
>>         <#foo>  xhv:test<#foo>  .
>>         <>  xhv:test<>  .
>>
>> I think this needs clarification; not just in RDFa 1.1, but also as an
>> errata for RDFa 1.0.
>>
>> --
>> Toby A Inkster
>> <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
>> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
>>
>>
>>      
>    

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Tuesday, 22 June 2010 18:11:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:55:06 GMT