W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > March 2006

Re: Appling inheritance rule to xml:base, was Re: FINAL minutes for the XML

From: Daniel Veillard <daniel@veillard.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 19:05:48 +0100
To: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: daniel@veillard.com, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, public-xml-core-wg@w3.org, public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <20060306180548.GE8294@daniel.veillard.com>

On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 09:50:05AM -0800, John Boyer wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
> 
> I think I missed something. 

  Okay maybe I missed something too.

> I am saying that when we *do* copy xml:base, it is *not* going to break 
> anything, and that we were requested to write the spec so that xml:base 
> *would* be included in this process because the authors of xml:base found 
> it useful. 

  I though the examples provided in the beginning of this thread proved
that a simple copy does not work.

> But you say that "Copying the xml:base when we know it's likely to break 
> should then not be done"
> Can you provide an example where copying the xml:base breaks something?
> I have not found such an example before...

  Cascading of bases, you can't just copy the value of xml:base on
an ancestor and plug it in one of the children without potentially
breaking something. That's why we had consensus during the face 2 face
that xml:base should not be copied. That only xml:lang and xml:space
could be considered of inheriting to their subtree without risk,
and only those 2 could be copied in the c14n algorithm.

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Veillard      | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
daniel@veillard.com  | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
http://veillard.com/ | 
Received on Monday, 6 March 2006 18:06:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:33 GMT