- From: Daniel Veillard <daniel@veillard.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 19:05:48 +0100
- To: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
- Cc: daniel@veillard.com, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, public-xml-core-wg@w3.org, public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org
On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 09:50:05AM -0800, John Boyer wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > I think I missed something. Okay maybe I missed something too. > I am saying that when we *do* copy xml:base, it is *not* going to break > anything, and that we were requested to write the spec so that xml:base > *would* be included in this process because the authors of xml:base found > it useful. I though the examples provided in the beginning of this thread proved that a simple copy does not work. > But you say that "Copying the xml:base when we know it's likely to break > should then not be done" > Can you provide an example where copying the xml:base breaks something? > I have not found such an example before... Cascading of bases, you can't just copy the value of xml:base on an ancestor and plug it in one of the children without potentially breaking something. That's why we had consensus during the face 2 face that xml:base should not be copied. That only xml:lang and xml:space could be considered of inheriting to their subtree without risk, and only those 2 could be copied in the c14n algorithm. Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ daniel@veillard.com | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ http://veillard.com/ |
Received on Monday, 6 March 2006 18:06:34 UTC