Re: Fragments in <base href>

No. I am saying it definitively addresses the issue. 

"Mark Birbeck" <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com> wrote:

>Hi Shane,
>
>I didn't quite follow...are you saying that RFC 3986 doesn't address
>the 'fragment on the end of a URL issue'?
>
>If so, I'd say it does -- it's the algorithm in section 5 of RFC 3986
>that removes the fragment identifier.
>
>The algorithm describes how to create an absolute path when you have a
>relative path, and an absolute path to base it on. You'll see in the
>algorithm that if the absolute path has a fragment identifier it gets
>dropped, because it doesn't get 'added back' when reconstructing the
>combined URI.
>
>The first part of the following email also discusses the RFC and some
>related issues:
>
>  <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa/2009Apr/0000.html>
>
>Regards,
>
>Mark
>
>On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com> wrote:
>> RDFa Syntax 1.0 [1] says:
>>
>> Since RDFa is ultimately a means for transporting RDF, then a key concept is
>> the resource and its manifestation as a URI. Since RDF deals with complete
>> URIs (not relative paths), then when converting RDFa to triples, any
>> relative URIs will need to be resolved relative to the base URI, using the
>> algorithm defined in section 5 of RFC 3986 [URI], Reference Resolution.
>>
>> I'm not sure that really addresses the basic issue though.  We also defer to
>> the definition of the base element from XHTML M12N, which in turn defers to
>> the definition of the base element from HTML 4.01 [2] which states, in part
>> :
>>
>> href = uri [CT] This attribute specifies an absolute URI that acts as the
>> base URI for resolving relative URIs.
>>
>> So.... base must be an absolute URI and, according to 3986 [3] section 5.2,
>> and in particular the algorithm in section 5.2.2, it is clear that any
>> fragment is not included in the base.
>>
>> Hope this helps.
>>
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#s_curieprocessing
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/links.html#edef-BASE
>> [3] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt
>>
>> On 6/22/2010 8:30 AM, Mark Birbeck wrote:
>>
>> Hi Toby,
>>
>> It's this one:
>>
>>   <> xhv:test <> .
>>
>> You get the base path by creating an absolute path based on the value
>> in 'base'. And even if the base URI has a fragment identifier, the
>> fragment identifier is dropped.
>>
>> I.e.,:
>>
>>   assert.areEqual(
>>     absolute("http://example.net/#foo", ""),
>>     "http://example.net/"
>>   );
>>
>> This is definitely mentioned in the RDFa 1.0 spec, although I don't
>> have time to look for it at the moment.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>> So how is the following to be interpreted?
>>
>>        <html>
>>                <head rel=":test" resource="">
>>                        <base href="http://example.net/#foo" />
>>                </head>
>>        </html>
>>
>> I can imagine arguments in favour of:
>>
>>        <#foo> xhv:test <> .
>>        <#foo> xhv:test <#foo> .
>>        <> xhv:test <> .
>>
>> I think this needs clarification; not just in RDFa 1.1, but also as an
>> errata for RDFa 1.0.
>>
>> --
>> Toby A Inkster
>> <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
>> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
>> Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
>> ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
>>
>>
>

-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Received on Wednesday, 23 June 2010 01:00:39 UTC