RE: ISSUE-92 (xml:base): xml:base not included [DFXP 1.0]

4.1 seems to contradict that:

"This specification defines two types of normative schemas that may be used to validate a subset of conformant DFXP document instances:"

If we are going to make abstract document validity the normative one, then the schemas should become informative.

Sean Hayes
Media Accessibility Strategist
Accessibility Business Unit
Microsoft

Office:  +44 118 909 5867,
Mobile: +44 7875 091385


-----Original Message-----
From: public-tt-request@w3.org [mailto:public-tt-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Glenn A. Adams
Sent: 05 May 2009 11:51 PM
To: Public TTWG List
Subject: Re: ISSUE-92 (xml:base): xml:base not included [DFXP 1.0]

this is already permitted by means of section 4 item 3; so you may close
this issue;

On 5/6/09 3:20 AM, "Timed Text Working Group Issue Tracker"
<sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:

>
> ISSUE-92 (xml:base): xml:base not included [DFXP 1.0]
>
> http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/92
>
> Raised by: Sean Hayes
> On product: DFXP 1.0
>
> We did not include xml:base in the timed text specification, because as timed
> text makes no external references it was deemed unnecessary. However this may
> cause an unfortunate side effect making it unable to interoperate with
> XInclude.
>
> The XInclude spec says:
>
> "Each element information item in the top-level included items which has a
> different base URI than its include parent has an attribute information item
> added to its attributes property. This attribute has the following properties:
> .... [describes xml;base attribute]"
>
> Since timed text has no external references, it has no base URI, so itıs not
> 100% clear whether the xml:base should be added as a result of this clause
> (and it may be suppressed by user option), however if it is (which it seems to
> be in practice); this would prevent the resulting dfxp document from
> validating against the schema.
>
> proposal: allow xml:base on elements in the schema, but indicating that its
> value is ignored in the prose.
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 5 May 2009 23:00:48 UTC