- From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 12:32:50 -0700
- To: "'Dan Connolly'" <connolly@w3.org>, David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Cc: xml-uri@w3.org
> -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org] > One can consider a base URI to be a property of an XML document, > or as something to be associated with an XML document. I'm not at > all sure that the XML 1.0 spec clearly distinguishes these. The > XML Infoset draft specifies that the [base URI] is a property > of an XML document, and that's the way I'm using the term. > > http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WD-xml-infoset-19991220#infoitem.document This reference states "[base URI] The absolute URI of the document entity, as computed by the method of RFC 2396 [RFC2396], if that is known." This indicates to me that there may not be a base URI property, or that it's value may be null. My understanding is that without a base URI absolutization cannot occur, and absolutized namespace names cannot be determined. > Anyway... as specified in the infoset draft, if you copy > the characters of an XML document from one place to another > in the web, the result is a different XML document. Fine, nobody's not contesting that. But absolutization implies that copying an XML document from one place to another also may result in a document that is no longer namespace-compliant XML, or that is a different document type and so processors (e.g. stylesheets) for that document type fail.
Received on Wednesday, 24 May 2000 15:35:53 UTC