FW: issue-dbooth-4f: Sec 4, base IRI of an element

I meant to send this to the regular WG list.  I did not intend it as a
formal comment.  

AFAICT this looks like an editorial issue.  Can anyone shed light on it?
Shouldn't this refer to the base IRI of the XML document?

> From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) 
> 
> P.S. I notice that RFC3986 refers to the "base URI of a 
> representation":
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt
> 
> 
> David Booth, Ph.D.
> HP Software
> +1 617 629 8881 office  |  dbooth@hp.com
> http://www.hp.com/go/software
> 
> Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not 
> represent the official views of HP unless explicitly stated otherwise.
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-grddl-comments-request@w3.org 
> > [mailto:public-grddl-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> > Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 6:25 PM
> > To: public-grddl-comments@w3.org
> > Subject: issue-dbooth-4f: Sec 4, base IRI of an element
> > 
> > 
> > In Sec 4
> > http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#rule_tlrel
> > 
> > The normative definition of GRDDL transformation mentions 
> > "the base IRI
> > of E" , but E was defined as "the head element".  Does "the head
> > element" have a base IRI?  A quick scan of the XHTML spec at
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/ shows no mention of base URI.  
> > The XML spec
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/ mentions the "base URI of a 
> > resource".  Is
> > the concept of a base URI of an element supposed to be defined
> > somewhere, or is this an editorial error?
> > 
> > Come to think of it, I guess this question also applies to 
> > the section 2
> > definition of GRDDL transformation:
> > http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#rule_GRDDL_transformation
> > 
> > 
> > David Booth, Ph.D.
> > HP Software
> > +1 617 629 8881 office  |  dbooth@hp.com
> > http://www.hp.com/go/software
> > 
> > Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do 
> not represent
> > the official views of HP unless explicitly stated otherwise.
> > 
> > 
>

Received on Friday, 15 June 2007 01:23:32 UTC