Re: what "huge problem" with XML Base? [was: red/green XML]

At 10:54 2000 06 06 -0500, Paul Grosso wrote:
>At 10:03 2000 06 06 -0400, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
>>From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
>>> There also exists a red/green problem with absolutization. It depends on
>>>whether a parser implements XBase. A document which is parsed using an
XBase
>>>conformant parser might not be well formed (red XML), while the same
>>>document parsed with a current parser will be well formed (green XML).
>>
>>I agree that that is a huge problem with XBase.  (Ha anyone made that
>>comment formally?)
>
>I fail to understand this.  
>
>Please provide an example of a document that, when parsed using an 
>XML Base conformant parser, is not well-formed, whereas when parsed 
>with an XML Base unaware parser is well-formed *under the same
>assumption of how relative namespace names work*.  
>
>I do not believe this to be the case.
>
>Whatever we decide to do with relative namespace names and whatever
>we decide about whether XML Base affects relative namespace names,
>given a decision, I do not see how awareness or lack thereof of
>XML Base can affect well-formedness.

Note, I meant "well-formedness" per XML 1.0 itself.

As far as violating the "Uniqueness of Attributes" part of the
Namespace spec [which is neither a production nor labeled a
"Namespace constraint", but does appear to be some unidentified
normative text], use of relative namespace names does allow for 
examples where the Uniqueness of Attributes test has different 
results for XML Base unaware parsers and XML Base aware parsers.

But this can happen without use of XML Base simply by having
relative namespace names declared in different external entities.
The problem arises as soon as you allow relative namespace names,
and is not a problem with XML Base per se.

So what's the huge problem with XML Base?

paul

Received on Tuesday, 6 June 2000 12:13:39 UTC