- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 10:17:22 -0000
- To: "Dave Beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
(moving on-list) Dave and I have been having a discussion about xmlbase test013. Dave: > I wonder if you shouldn't be raising these as errata on XML Base? > The missing path component one seems tricky too. Jeremy: > maybe the test cases such as number 13 that you were > asking about that are basically about RFC 2396 should be non-normative. [i.e. test cases that are about URI resolution (or the workings of xml:base in general), as opposed to the test cases to do with xml:base in an RDF context]. I thought both of these ideas are worth bringing to other peoples attention. Seems like a proposal to: - draw the relevant XML wg's attention to difficulties in interpretating xml:base with same document references, (particularly when the base is a URIref). - select the xml:base test cases that: - test general URI resolution - test general xml:base behaviour and mark them as non-normative Jeremy > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Beckett [mailto:dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk] > Sent: 19 March 2002 15:52 > To: Jeremy Carroll > Subject: Re: XML Base > > > >>>Jeremy Carroll said: > > I wasn't particularly looking at any text, other than that bit > of RFC 2396 > > that talked about the same document reference "" as the start > of the current > > document. > > > > I thought that the other cases in the test case were unproblematic: > > vis - "relpath" and "#foo" > > In those cases, whether they use the full base URI#frag or not is moot > > > > the only real issue is whether > > > > "" resolved against "http://example.org/dir/file#frag" is > > "http://example.org/dir/file#frag" > > or > > "http://example.org/dir/file" > > > > I basically made it up, on the basis of the RFC 2396 text. > > Made it up? :) > > > [[[ > > > > 4.2. Same-document References > > > > A URI reference that does not contain a URI is a reference to the > > current document. In other words, an empty URI reference within a > > document is interpreted as a reference to the start of that document, > > and a reference containing only a fragment identifier is a reference > > to the identified fragment of that document. Traversal of such a > > reference should not result in an additional retrieval action. > > However, if the URI reference occurs in a context that is always > > intended to result in a new request, as in the case of HTML's FORM > > element, then an empty URI reference represents the base URI of the > > current document and should be replaced by that URI when transformed > > into a request. > > > > ]]] > > > > emphasise "start of that document" .... > > Yeah, seems fair enough. > > Did we ever get a definitive answer out of Larry? > > I wonder if you shouldn't be raising these as errata on XML Base? > The missing path component one seems tricky too. > > Empty: http://www.w3.org/2001/06/xmlbase-errata > > Dave > >
Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2002 05:19:17 UTC