W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org > July to September 2000

Re: base and external entities [was: Last call comments on XML Base]

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 10:38:32 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.32.20000712103700.00779ca8@pophost.arbortext.com>
To: w3c-xml-linking-ig@w3.org, uri@w3.org, www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org
Cc: "Martin J. Duerst" <duerst@w3.org>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
At 16:57 2000 07 11 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
>But I suppose I could accept either model, as
>long as all of W3C can accept it: core (infoset,
>xinclude), schemas, DSig, etc. I think it's
>right for the XLink WG/IG to try to decide this, but
>let's do get buy-in on whatever decision is reached,
>once you guys are satisfied.

During today's XML Core WG telcon, the WG directed me [1]
to publish to these mailing lists the XML Core WG's
unanimous (among those on the telcon) opinion on this issue.

The WG believes that the implicit base URI for (XML) external 
entities is the external entity's URI.  In the specific case
of XML Base, the WG believes that the effect of an xml:base 
assignment should not descend into external entities.

Various implementors in the WG said this is how their implementations
work, and no implementors felt it should be otherwise.

The following text in the XML 1.0 Recommendation (though admittedly
talking about system identifiers in declarations rather than 
relative URIs in content) was pointed out as supporting this view:

  Unless otherwise provided by information outside the scope of
  this specification (e.g. a special XML element type defined by
  a particular DTD, or a processing instruction defined by a
  particular application specification), relative URIs are relative
  to the location of the resource within which the entity declaration
  occurs. A URI might thus be relative to the document entity, to the
  entity containing the external DTD subset, or to some other external
  parameter entity. [2]

The WG agrees that various specs, including XML 1.0 and Infoset, could 
be clearer about the details of this issue, but there was clear consensus
on what those details should be.

Paul Grosso (co-chair) for the XML Core WG

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-core-wg/2000JulSep/0068
     agenda item 6 (mem only)
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#sec-external-ent
Received on Wednesday, 12 July 2000 13:38:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:39:40 GMT