- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 09:27:56 -0500
- To: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
- Message-ID: <m2zlhaxk43.fsf@nwalsh.com>
Toman_Vojtech@emc.com writes: > The new draft (28 January 2009) says the following about p:hash: > > "If the expression given in the match option matches an attribute, the > hash is used as the new value of the attribute in the output. If the > attribute is named 'xml:base', the base URI of the element must also be > amended accordingly." > > Is the sentence about xml:base really what we want here? I mean, do we > really want to use a hash value (which is essentially a hex string) as a > base URI? Well, I agree it's exceptionally unlikely to be of practical value, but it's consistent with what we say about other steps that can change the xml:base attribute. > ...but perhaps this can be a useful feature. And besides, as I think > about it now, it is probably a better solution than forbidding using > p:hash on @xml:base... Exactly. I don't think it does any *harm* to have these semantics, so I don't think it's worth imposing an exception on users or implementors. Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | The First Amendment is often http://nwalsh.com/ | inconvenient. But that is besides the | point. Inconvenience does not absolve | the government of its obligation to | tolerate speech.--Justice Anthony | Kennedy, in 91-155
Received on Thursday, 29 January 2009 14:28:44 UTC