Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM> writes: > / John Boyer <JBoyer@PureEdge.com> was heard to say: > | C14N isn't "just plain broken" with respect to xml:id. > | > | C14N was produced years before xml:id and therefore > | "does not support" xml:id. > > No offense was intended, please accept my apologies for not expressing > that more carefully. > > C14N was written with the assumption that all attributes in the xml: > namespace were inherited by their descendants. When C14N was written, > the only examples of attributes in the xml: namespace were xml:lang, > xml:space, and xml:base, all of which behave in this way. Er, no, xml:base (which may or may not have come later), certainly does _not_ behave that way. Consider <root xml:base="../elsewhere" xlink:href="relative.html"> <internal xlink:href="relative.html"/> </root> Those two hrefs are to the _same_ absolute URI, which would not be true if xml:base were copied downwards! Richard Tobin first pointed this out, as far as I know. ht -- Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh Half-time member of W3C Team 2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440 Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/ [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]Received on Tuesday, 8 February 2005 09:40:23 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:38 GMT