RE: [w3c sml] [4688] Consider using xml:base

I'm sorry but from the enclosed interleaved email thread(s?) I cannot 
reliably figure out exactly what proposal it is we are assessing for 
agreement.  With a non-HTML mail client eg what someone gets searching the 
archive, it is much worse.

If it is the one below (Sandy...So counter-proposal: ) then I am ok with 
it at first blush, but not sure what the second bullet does or why it is 
needed.  As long as modelType has anyAttribute on it, which it should - if 
not that is a bug to be opened, xml:base can already be freely used and 
will validate, no?

Sandy...So counter-proposal: 
- Remove smlif:baseURI 
- Add a reference to xml:base in "modelType" (to allow <model 
xml:base="...">) 
- Use infoset [base URI] property in places where "smlif:baseURI" is 
currently used. 

Best Regards, John

Street address: 2455 South Road, Poughkeepsie, NY USA 12601
Voice: 1+845-435-9470      Fax: 1+845-432-9787



Pratul Dublish <Pratul.Dublish@microsoft.com> 
Sent by: public-sml-request@w3.org
09/07/2007 01:38 PM

To
"public-sml@w3.org" <public-sml@w3.org>
cc

Subject
RE: [w3c sml] [4688] Consider using xml:base






All (except Sandy J)
 
Please speak up now if you disagree with Sandy’s proposal. You may want to 
read my comments on Sandy’s proposal.
 
Thanks!
Pratul
 
From: Sandy Gao [mailto:sandygao@ca.ibm.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 8:58 AM
To: Pratul Dublish
Cc: public-sml@w3.org
Subject: Re: [w3c sml] [4688] Consider using xml:base
 

Pratul and all, 

> 1.       <baseURI> allows attribute extensions, and this will be 
> lost if xml:base is used 

Yes, and the rest of the XML world has lived with that for many years. 
(xml: id, lang, base, ... are all attributes) 
[Pratul] Members should consider what is best for SML.  We should avoid 
gratuitous divergence from existing standards but we should feel free to 
define new things if required. 


> 2.       The xml:base spec uses the definition of URI from RFC 2396 
> but the definition of xs:anyURI in XML Schema 1.0 uses RFC 2396 as 
> amended by RFC 2732. So there is a possibility (I don't know for 
> sure since I haven't read 2396) that xml:base is not aligned with 
xs:anyURI 

There's some weirdness in the xml:base spec. It only mentions 2396 in most 
cases, but also mentions 2732 in one place. 

Yes, it's possible to have such inconsistency, but this would happen 
between any 2 specifications we reference. For example, if XPath 1.0 and 
Schema 1.1 are used together; ... 

(This one feels even weaker, because 2732 really isn't much different from 
2396.) 
[Pratul] I found that XML Base has issued an Errata (
http://www.w3.org/2001/06/xmlbase-errata) that switches to the definition 
of URI in RFC3986. This is consistent with SML and SML IF specs – both of 
which reference RFC 3986.  We already have the possibility of 
inconsistency with XML Schema 1.0 since it uses RFC 2396 as amended by RFC 
2732.


> 3.       xml:base does not support IRIs, so it can't be used if we 
> decide to support IRIs in SML IF ( bug 4632  ) 

It does support IRIs in a way similar to anyURI. xml:base allows non-ASCII 
characters; its values, after escaping, become valid URIs. 
[Pratul] My point was that xml:base does not follow the IRI RFC (3987). 



So I don't see any of the above as significant problem. On the other hand, 
reinventing an existing concept, which is widely supported (including 
infoset), seems more problematic to me. 

So counter-proposal: 
- Remove smlif:baseURI 
- Add a reference to xml:base in "modelType" (to allow <model 
xml:base="...">) 
- Use infoset [base URI] property in places where "smlif:baseURI" is 
currently used. 

Thanks,
Sandy Gao
XML Technologies, IBM Canada
Editor, W3C XML Schema WG
Member, W3C SML WG
(1-905) 413-3255 T/L 969-3255


public-sml-request@w3.org wrote on 2007-09-07 12:28:00 AM:

> All 
> This is an attempt to instigate consensus on the resolution of this 
> bug. We don’t have any specific proposal for this bug, so I am going
> to make a proposal based on my comments in the bug. The proposal is 
> that SML IF should not use xml:base and continue to use the existing
> <baseURI> element because 
>   
> 1.       <baseURI> allows attribute extensions, and this will be 
> lost if xml:base is used 
> 2.       The xml:base spec uses the definition of URI from RFC 2396 
> but the definition of xs:anyURI in XML Schema 1.0 uses RFC 2396 as 
> amended by RFC 2732. So there is a possibility (I don’t know for 
> sure since I haven’t read 2396) that xml:base is not aligned with 
xs:anyURI 
> 3.       xml:base does not support IRIs, so it can’t be used if we 
> decide to support IRIs in SML IF ( bug 4632  ) 
>   
>   
> Please speak up now if you disagree with this proposal. 
>   
> Thanks! 
> Pratul