- From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
- Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 12:17:09 -0400
- To: David Lee <David.Lee@marklogic.com>
- Cc: "Rushforth, Peter" <Peter.Rushforth@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca>, Uche Ogbuji <uche@ogbuji.net>, "public-microxml@w3.org" <public-microxml@w3.org>
David Lee scripsit: > XML does a poor job by defininging *some* (like xml:base) but largely > because it had to deal with external entities and (like xml:id) because > it had to be compatible with DTD's. The xml:base attribute has nothing to do with external entities and doesn't affect them in any way. It gives you a universal way to define the meaning of relative URIs embedded in the document. There is a general tension between what should be universally recognizable and what should be left to document-type designers. XML provides just a few universals and leaves everything else up to you. -- Your worships will perhaps be thinking John Cowan that it is an easy thing to blow up a dog? http://www.ccil.org/~cowan [Or] to write a book? --Don Quixote, Introduction cowan@ccil.org
Received on Wednesday, 5 September 2012 16:17:36 UTC