- From: Konrad Lanz <Konrad.Lanz@iaik.tugraz.at>
- Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 16:56:36 +0100
- To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
- Cc: Peter Lipp <peter.lipp@iaik.tugraz.at>, Martin Centner <mcentner@iaik.tugraz.at>
- Message-ID: <4422C534.9020808@iaik.tugraz.at>
Dear all, the email below is a draft to be sent as "mailto:public-ietf-w3c@w3.org?cc=uri-ig@w3.org&subject=Joining two relative URIs <mailto:public-ietf-w3c@w3.org?cc=uri-ig@w3.org&subject=Joining%20two%20relative%20URIs>" next Monday on behalf of the xml core working group. best regards Konrad Lanz #--- snip --- Dear T. Berners-Lee, R. Fielding, L. Masinter, According to an email by John Boyer <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Mar/0004.html> we need to apply the inheritance rule <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlbase/#resolution> to xml:base when canonicalizing a XPath node-set over a XML document using C14n <http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-c14n>'s successor Canonical XML 1.1 <http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/02/WD-xml-c14n11>. This can be critical when nodes in a document become an orphan. For a simple example cf. to the post by Henry S. Thompson <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Mar/0036.html> where critical xml:base context could be lost by for instance applying an XPath-Filter <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core/#sec-XPath>(2.0 <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-filter2/>). Consider the following <a> <b xml:base="test1/somefile1.ext#abc?def"> <c xml:base="test2/somefile2.ext"/> </b> </a> with the 'b' being clipped out, we'd get <a> <c xml:base="test1/test2/somefile2.ext"/> </a> and the relevant information of xml:base gets pushed down to the child nodes. If b's xml:base was an absolute URI one would absolutize using the algorithm in 5.2 in RFC 2396 <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt>. However the example above requires the joining of two relative URIs which we believe is not defined in RFC 2396 <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt>. It may nevertheless be defined in RFC 3986 <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt> in section "5.2. Relative Resolution" by applying applying the algorithm in 5.2 ignoring the note "that only the scheme component is required to be present in a base URI". Our question is: Is this covered in the scope of RFC 3986 <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt> ? The group currently discusses the resolution above as an alternative to adapting section 5.2 step 6 <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Mar/0041.html> of RFC 2396 <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt> (currently referenced in xml base <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlbase/#resolution> and C14n) <http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-c14n> or not to apply inheritance rules <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlbase/#resolution> at all when nodes in a document become an orphan. Your comments are greatly appreciated. best regards on behalf of the xml-core-group Konrad Lanz #--- snip --- -- Konrad Lanz, IAIK/SIC - Graz University of Technology Inffeldgasse 16a, 8010 Graz, Austria Tel: +43 316 873 5547 Fax: +43 316 873 5520 https://www.iaik.tugraz.at/aboutus/people/lanz http://jce.iaik.tugraz.at Certificate chain (including the EuroPKI root certificate): https://europki.iaik.at/ca/europki-at/cert_download.htm
Received on Thursday, 23 March 2006 15:56:48 UTC