W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > March 2002

RE: XML Base

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 10:17:22 -0000
To: "Dave Beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDEEGOCDAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

(moving on-list)

Dave and I have been having a discussion about xmlbase test013.

Dave:
> I wonder if you shouldn't be raising these as errata on XML Base?
> The missing path component one seems tricky too.


Jeremy:
> maybe the test cases such as number 13 that you were
> asking about that are basically about RFC 2396 should be non-normative.
[i.e. test cases that are about URI resolution (or the workings of xml:base
in general), as opposed to the test cases to do with xml:base in an RDF
context].

I thought both of these ideas are worth bringing to other peoples attention.

Seems like a proposal to:

- draw the relevant XML wg's attention to difficulties in interpretating
xml:base with same document references, (particularly when the base is a
URIref).

- select the xml:base test cases that:
  - test general URI resolution
  - test general xml:base behaviour
  and mark them as non-normative


Jeremy




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Beckett [mailto:dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk]
> Sent: 19 March 2002 15:52
> To: Jeremy Carroll
> Subject: Re: XML Base
>
>
> >>>Jeremy Carroll said:
> > I wasn't particularly looking at any text, other than that bit
> of RFC 2396
> > that talked about the same document reference "" as the start
> of the current
> > document.
> >
> > I thought that the other cases in the test case were unproblematic:
> > vis - "relpath" and "#foo"
>
> In those cases, whether they use the full base URI#frag or not is moot
>
>
> > the only real issue is whether
> >
> > "" resolved against "http://example.org/dir/file#frag" is
> > "http://example.org/dir/file#frag"
> > or
> > "http://example.org/dir/file"
> >
> > I basically made it up, on the basis of the RFC 2396 text.
>
> Made it up? :)
>
> > [[[
> >
> > 4.2. Same-document References
> >
> >    A URI reference that does not contain a URI is a reference to the
> >    current document.  In other words, an empty URI reference within a
> >    document is interpreted as a reference to the start of that document,
> >    and a reference containing only a fragment identifier is a reference
> >    to the identified fragment of that document.  Traversal of such a
> >    reference should not result in an additional retrieval action.
> >    However, if the URI reference occurs in a context that is always
> >    intended to result in a new request, as in the case of HTML's FORM
> >    element, then an empty URI reference represents the base URI of the
> >    current document and should be replaced by that URI when transformed
> >    into a request.
> >
> > ]]]
> >
> > emphasise "start of that document" ....
>
> Yeah, seems fair enough.
>
> Did we ever get a definitive answer out of Larry?
>
> I wonder if you shouldn't be raising these as errata on XML Base?
> The missing path component one seems tricky too.
>
> Empty: http://www.w3.org/2001/06/xmlbase-errata
>
> Dave
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2002 05:19:17 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:46:19 EDT