W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sml@w3.org > October 2007

[Bug 5171] Confusing and contradicting sections on resolving inter-document references

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:01:44 +0000
CC:
To: public-sml@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1IfwjY-0000BB-Eb@wiggum.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5171





------- Comment #2 from johnarwe@us.ibm.com  2007-10-11 12:01 -------
3.4.5 ...then the [base URI] property as defined by Infoset [XML
Information Set] MUST be used to specify a base URI for these references. 
I believe this is in error, opened 5181 for it earlier today.  Should be
/model/identity@xml:base in particular.

Proposal:
Clarify the text (doing so may take several iterations) without changing the
original intent, namely:
1. A model has a single base URI for relative references
2. Fragment-only references are always treated as what RFC 3896 calls
"same-document references" where "same-document" means the model
definition/instance document in which the reference is logically embedded (we
do like our recursive definitions).  Put another way, it is treated as if the
SML-IF envelope was absent and no other base URI existed in the infoset. 
According to RFC 3896 same-doc refs are relative (because they do not begin
with  a scheme followed by a colon), but SMLIF is asserting a different
application-defined base URI for what it calls fragment-only [inter-doc] refs
than for relative refs in general.

In practice this probably means refining the reference resolution "code" from
Sandy's proposal to make this explicit, and given the varying interpretations
around base URIs and relative references already in evidence between here,
4688, and 5181, the group probably should see the revised code before it is
committed to a new draft.
Received on Thursday, 11 October 2007 12:01:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:56:06 UTC