- From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 14:28:35 -0500
- To: "John Boyer" <jboyer@PureEdge.com>, "Www-Xml-Linking-Comments@W3. Org" <www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org>
- Cc: "XML DSig" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
What does C14N do about relative URIs in external entities in the absence of any xml:base and how does xml:base cause a problem that isn't already there with external entities? See also some of the following: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2000JulSep/0056 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2000JulSep/0047 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2000JulSep/0062 and the rest of the many messages in this archive on this issue. paul At 12:03 2000 07 26 -0700, John Boyer wrote: > I realize this is after the last call period, but the matter was brought to my attention after the last call period for XML base. XML base is restricted from applying to external entities. However, when you c14n a document, the external entity content is brought into the document, so xml:base will apply to it. Right now, I have language in c14n that propagates xml:base to descendant elements in the case of document subsets, but the problem above occurs even when one does a c14n of the whole document. I think c14n is doing the right thing in that it is consistent with what xml:base should do: the entities are no longer external, so xml:base attributes from ancestors should apply to them. It think the problem is that the meaning of the content is changed based on where we get it from. We have no way of retaining information on content derived from external entities. In particular, the feature seems to contradict the language of section 4.4.2 of XML 1.0: "An entity is included when its replacement text is retrieved and processed, in place of the reference itself, as though it were part of the document at the location the reference was recognized. " Since the replacement text should be treated 'as though it were part of the document', we should not introduce an attribute into the xml namespace that violates this concept. >
Received on Wednesday, 26 July 2000 15:28:45 UTC