W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > November 2009

[Bug 8219] [XSLT] Shallow copy and xml:base

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:00:45 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1N6UzF-0004to-F8@wiggum.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8219


Oliver Hallam <oliver@cbcl.co.uk> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |oliver@cbcl.co.uk




--- Comment #2 from Oliver Hallam <oliver@cbcl.co.uk>  2009-11-06 20:00:45 ---
Let me summarize the effects of the two interpretations:

Interpretation 1:
  a) If the source node has a relative xml:base attribute then the base URI is
computed with this uri resolved against the uri of the xsl:copy instruction. 
The xml:base attribute itself is not copied.

  b) Otherwise the base URI of the source node is used.

  c) xml:base attributes that appear in the copied node are ignored for
purposes of computing the node's base URI.


Interpretation 2:
  a) If the copied node has an xml:base attribute then this is resolved against
the base URI of the xsl:copy instruction. 

  b) Otherwise the base URI of the source node is used.


Surely the intention of this sentence was interpretation 2 and it was just
poorly worded?

If the intention was indeed interpretation 1, then what was the justification
for adding this condition?


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 6 November 2009 20:00:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:57:29 UTC