RE: base and IRI

I forgot to put this on the agenda for today's meeting.

We should plan to discuss this next week, but I'd be
interested to hear any thoughts in email.

paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Chris Lilley
> Sent: Wednesday, 2005 October 05 12:32
> To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: xml:base and IRI
> 
> 
> Hello XML Core,
> 
> It is good to see that the updating of XLink to 1.1, which includes
> updating references to the current IRI specification, is progressing
> well.
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xlink11-20050707/
> 
> On a related issue, xml:base (which XLink and other 
> specifications will
> use when a relative URI is specified) also has old references to URI
> (RFC 2396). This means that the processing of relative URIs 
> (or IRIs) is
> theoretically unspecified (although in practice fairly clear, 
> as long as
> xml:base takes an anyURI which is, in effect, an IRI).
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlbase-20010627/
> 
> It would be cleaner, therefore, to have an update to xml:base to fix
> this. The changes should be fairly modest:
> 
> - update references to RFC 2396 so they point to RFC 3986
> - update references to "a URI or a strong of characters which when
> processed by the following algorithm...." to "IRI" and point 
> to RFC 3987
> - add some more examples
> - check that any terms whose meaning was clarified from RFC 
> 2396 to RFC
> 3986 are still being correctly used.
> 
> It seems to me that many of the text changes made to XLink 1.0 to
> produce XLink 1.1 could be reused to update xml:base also.
> 
> In addition, the Architecture of the World Wide Web, vol 1 is 
> written in
> terms of 'RFC 2396bis' which is what RFC 3986 was called before it got
> an RFC number. Therefore, updating xml:base in this regard would also
> bring it into alignment with Web Architecture.
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webarch-20041215/
> 
> An update to xml:base would have the additional advantage that
> specifications which use it (such as XHTML 1.x, XHTML 2, SVG 
> 1.x, and so
> on) would immediately benefit as they themselves move to using IRIs
> either directly or via XLink 1.1.
> 
> Reviewing the references in xml:id, the reference to XML 
> second edition
> could be updated to third edition at the same time, and perhaps a
> mention of XML 1.1 added.
> 
> -- 
>  Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
>  Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
>  W3C Graphics Activity Lead
>  Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 12 October 2005 18:58:04 UTC