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

After the spelunking exercise, I think the safest bet is the text 
unchanged. It does raise David's question, and the answer appears to be 
that sometimes, it is possible to have both xml:base and html:base and 
both need to be taken into account - but such possibilities are probably 
best left to some other WG ....

Jeremy



Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> Summary:
> 
> two possible suggested changes:
> 
> 1) change the normative text from
> "the base IRI of E" to "the base IRI of N"
> in the specific rule
> http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#rule_tlrel
> or
> 2) change the informative text, after the rule from:
> "Note that the base IRI of an element node in an XHTML document may be 
> influenced by factors such as a base element[HTML4] Retrieval 
> URIRFC3986, etc. See test cases such as htmlbase1 for further 
> clarification."
> to
> "Note that the base IRI of an element node in an XHTML document
> is the base IRI of the document and may be influenced by factors such as 
> a base element[HTML4] Retrieval URIRFC3986, etc. See test cases such as 
> htmlbase1 for further clarification."
> 
> (In case 1, the informative text would need a small tweak too)
> (my preference is (2))
> 
> ========================
> 
> 
> I think this comment has some merit
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-comments/2007AprJun/0100
> 
> My understanding is that:
> - GRDDL depends on XML Base in section 2
> - XML Base does define a base URI for every element
> - the language in section 2 is appropriate
> 
> But in section 4, XHTML does not implement XML Base, and hence in XHTML 
> documents XML Base is illegal, and a user-agent (including a GRDDL aware 
> agent) should either flag the error or ignore it.
> 
> Hence, the wording in
> http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#rule_tlrel
> "the base IRI of E"
> is slightly misleading, and might result in interoperability failures 
> with a document in the xhtml namespace, that does include an xml:base.
> 
> To some extent this is a GIGO problem.
> If someone mistakenly believes that XML Base is supported by XHTML then 
> they are likely to find different implementations behaving differently. 
> It is, in general, reasonable for a generic XML processor to assume that 
> if the document author has used xml:base then it has been used legally, 
> and not reasonable to expect a generic XML processor to know which 
> document formats support xml:base and which don't and to flag errors of 
> the form, "xml:base has been used inappropriately".
> 
> Section 2 thus does (and should, in my view) honour xml:base.
> 
> Section 4, which is specifically about XHTML should not. However, the 
> normative rule is written in greater generality (i.e. any XPath node set 
> with a metadata profile, although metadata profiles are only defined for 
> XHTML)
> 
> I think my preference, at this stage, would be to tweak the informative 
> text. I fully expect interoperability failures in this case, but that is 
> because of the confusing state of when xml:base can and cannot be used, 
> and that is not within this group's control or remit.
> 
> Whether this issue should be further called out in the (possible) new 
> base appendix, I am unclear. I think it is more important that at least 
> some implementations flag the error (using xml:base inside an HTML doc) 
> than the exact wording of the spec.
> 
> Jeremy
> 
> 
> 
> Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) wrote:
>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
> 

-- 
Hewlett-Packard Limited
registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England

Received on Monday, 18 June 2007 16:08:46 UTC