RE: Proposed response to xml:base comment

Sounds fine to me.

If no one has comments by the beginning of Richard's
day tomorrow (Thursday), he will send it off.

paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Richard Tobin
> Sent: Wednesday, 2008 August 27 8:26
> To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Proposed response to xml:base comment
> 
> 
> This refers to 
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2
> 008AprJun/0003.html
> 
> > From reading the documentation of xml:base, I am left unclear as to 
> > whether xml:base can not only be used on the parent of an 
> element, or 
> > whether its presence on any previous ancestor is enough to 
> trigger the 
> > resolving of relative URIs. This is especially unclear as I see a 
> > previous draft of the document did refer to "the nearest ancestor 
> > element" rather than what seems to me to be a more ambiguous 
> > "encapsulating entity".
> 
> Section 4.3 states that the base URI used for resolving a relative URI
> is that of the element containing it.  Section 4.2 states that the
> base URI of an element without an xml:base attribute is that of its
> parent element.  So base URIs come from the nearest ancestor with
> an xml:base attribute.  (There is an exception when entity boundaries
> intervene.)
> 
> The phrase "encapsulating entity" appears in case 2 of section 4.1,
> and is quoted from RFC3986.  The use of xml:base falls into case 1: it
> is a URI embedded in the document's content.  So "encapsulating
> entity" has nothing to do with the ancestor elements within the
> document.
> 
> -- Richard
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 27 August 2008 16:37:15 UTC