W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > January 2004

Gaspart's Comments

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 18:07:11 +0100
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <200401051807.11756.jjc@hpl.hp.com>



When I reviewed the guide example I was of the opinion that the xml:base value 
was OK because RFC 2396 specifies resolving against base URIs, whereas XML 
Base is explicitly permitted to have URI reference values. I've just looked 
again at both documents and failed to find explicit text that justified the 
behaviour of typical software which discards the fragment ID when asked to 
resolve a relative URI against a base absolute uri reference.

This suggests two possible responses and an action.

Response 1) accept the comment and make the changes suggested (this avoids 
failing to quote chapter and verse, but is a change)

Response 2) a response something like (the **** are for my comment after)
The XML Base attribute can be used with a URI reference value:

The attribute xml:base may be inserted in XML documents to specify a base URI 
other than the base URI of the document or external entity. The value of this 
attribute is interpreted as a URI Reference as defined in RFC 2396 [IETF RFC 
2396], after processing according to Section 3.1.

As indicated in this quote, and also in RFC 2396 section 5.1.1
Within certain document media types, the base URI of the document can
   be embedded within the content itself such that it can be readily
   obtained by a parser. 

Thus when xml:base is used with a uri reference value, in fact only the URI 
(without the fragment) is used as the document base.

This is also clear in the algorithm in section 5.2 of RFC 2396 that makes no 
reference to the fragment part of the base URI.

Thus the examples selected have the exact same meaning as they would have if 
the suggested changes were made. Given that ideally the documents do not 
change between PR and REC we decline to make the change.

comment: the **** part is dodgier than I would like.

action 3) I could make a personal comment, or we could make a WG comment on 
the XML Base spec noting that while it syntactically permits URI references, 
it does not explicitly say "When the value of an xml:base attribute is a URI 
reference, with a fragment, then the base URI is the corresponding URI, 
without the fragment." and suggest that there should be an erratum to clairfy 

If we make this as a WG comment then we could tell the commentator.


I would be happy with (3) and either (1) or (2). I guess that if we decide for 
(1) then the comment on XML base might be better as a personal comment, 
whereas if we went for (2) then the comment might be a WG comment.

Sorry for not having noticed this when I reviewed the examples.

Received on Monday, 5 January 2004 12:07:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:56 UTC