- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 09:45:41 -0500
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: ogbujic@ccf.org, GRDDL Working Group <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 15:20 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote: [...] > I think that GRDDL has to follow HTML here, and resolve the href in the > same way as HTML, so that > > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/whichdir.xsl > is a transformation of > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/base/xhtmlWithBaseElement Yes, that makes sense. The spec just says "the resource identified by the absolute form of the href attribute with respect to the base IRI of E ...". Perhaps, with a reference to this test in the test case doc, that's sufficient? I looked this up in the XHTML spec; it's hopeless. The href attribute is specified to take a URI, per RFC 2396, which is bogus; it should be URI reference... or really, IRI reference. http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xhtml-modularization-20010410/abstract_modules.html#s_hypertextmodule I could add normative prose to the GRDDL spec that specifies how base is handled in HTML, but that seems like a losing game. I am inclined to change the informative mechanical rule from ?E fn:base-uri ?BASE. to ?E gspec:html-base ?BASE. p.s. regarding whether to re-open this issue http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#issue-base-param our decision is... "RESOLVED: Given that a base URI parameter is a parameter whose value is the base URI of the source document, the WG RESOLVES not to define a base URI parameter for transforms." and I regard the test results you've sketched to be consistent with that decision; i.e. our decision is "GRDDL doesn't do anything special with base; it just follows the norms of XML and XHTML". But since we need a WG decision to approve the test cases anyway, we might as well amend the issue decision to note them. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2007 14:45:53 UTC