- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 18:23:17 +0000
- To: "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Cc: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Richard Tobin writes: >> It's hard to test XML Base, since there are no standard APIs for it >> that I know of. And applications that use XML Base won't resolve >> the escaped / unescaped issue. You could see what XSLT2's function >> returns, but that is a rather limited test. I have to say I'm not sure about the implementation question. We really do need to find some examples of specs. which a) refer to xml:base (the REC); b) behave as the PER says they should. Are we saying that existing behaviour doesn't need to have changed? I guess this test from the xlink test collection is relevant: http://www.w3.org/XML/Test/XLink/test002.html and you can see the result of norm's showxlink processor [1]: http://www.w3.org/XML/Test/XLink/test002_a.html Paul, I guess you should go ahead and send the Transition Request, but we'll have to have a story ready in time for the call. ht [1] http://www.w3.org/2006/08/showxlinks/showxlinks - -- Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh Half-time member of W3C Team 2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440 Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/ [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFea2VkjnJixAXWBoRAhjtAJoCIW4/gafGR9LyC10iwae/1iVY5wCfX6Qh EDY0MLqsr6N0Mlc9a55kbm0= =0y/9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Friday, 8 December 2006 18:23:39 UTC