Re: [w3c sml] [4688] Consider using xml:base

Pratul and all,

> 1.       <baseURI> allows attribute extensions, and this will be 
> lost if xml:base is used

Yes, and the rest of the XML world has lived with that for many years. 
(xml: id, lang, base, ... are all attributes)

> 2.       The xml:base spec uses the definition of URI from RFC 2396 
> but the definition of xs:anyURI in XML Schema 1.0 uses RFC 2396 as 
> amended by RFC 2732. So there is a possibility (I don't know for 
> sure since I haven't read 2396) that xml:base is not aligned with 
xs:anyURI

There's some weirdness in the xml:base spec. It only mentions 2396 in most 
cases, but also mentions 2732 in one place.

Yes, it's possible to have such inconsistency, but this would happen 
between any 2 specifications we reference. For example, if XPath 1.0 and 
Schema 1.1 are used together; ...

(This one feels even weaker, because 2732 really isn't much different from 
2396.)

> 3.       xml:base does not support IRIs, so it can't be used if we 
> decide to support IRIs in SML IF ( bug 4632  )

It does support IRIs in a way similar to anyURI. xml:base allows non-ASCII 
characters; its values, after escaping, become valid URIs.


So I don't see any of the above as significant problem. On the other hand, 
reinventing an existing concept, which is widely supported (including 
infoset), seems more problematic to me.

So counter-proposal:
- Remove smlif:baseURI
- Add a reference to xml:base in "modelType" (to allow <model 
xml:base="...">)
- Use infoset [base URI] property in places where "smlif:baseURI" is 
currently used.

Thanks,
Sandy Gao
XML Technologies, IBM Canada
Editor, W3C XML Schema WG
Member, W3C SML WG
(1-905) 413-3255 T/L 969-3255
 

public-sml-request@w3.org wrote on 2007-09-07 12:28:00 AM:

> All
> This is an attempt to instigate consensus on the resolution of this 
> bug. We don?t have any specific proposal for this bug, so I am going
> to make a proposal based on my comments in the bug. The proposal is 
> that SML IF should not use xml:base and continue to use the existing
> <baseURI> element because
> 
> 1.       <baseURI> allows attribute extensions, and this will be 
> lost if xml:base is used
> 2.       The xml:base spec uses the definition of URI from RFC 2396 
> but the definition of xs:anyURI in XML Schema 1.0 uses RFC 2396 as 
> amended by RFC 2732. So there is a possibility (I don?t know for 
> sure since I haven?t read 2396) that xml:base is not aligned with 
xs:anyURI
> 3.       xml:base does not support IRIs, so it can?t be used if we 
> decide to support IRIs in SML IF ( bug 4632  )
> 
> 
> Please speak up now if you disagree with this proposal. 
> 
> Thanks!
> Pratul