- From: Addison Phillips <addison@yahoo-inc.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 15:21:45 +0100
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- CC: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>, semantic-web@w3.org, www-international@w3.org
I believe that your interpretation is pretty much the opinion that many of us have held of what the PER means. I (think) it's clear that CharMod thinks that's what it means (although xml:base is never directly referenced). See: http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod-resid/#C059 Addison -- Addison Phillips Globalization Architect -- Yahoo! Inc. Internationalization is an architecture. It is not a feature. Chris Lilley wrote: > On Thursday, April 19, 2007, 1:26:36 PM, Jeremy wrote: > > > JC> Oh good. So a base-uri function, which doesn't do any fetching, also > JC> doesn't do any %-escaping? > > I would need to spec-spelunk to be sure but that would be my interpretation of the intent of the PER, yes. > > Specifically, two IRIs are the same if (following use of xml:base to do relative-to-absolute) they are the same Unicode strings. > > There is no need to hexify both of them, though IIRC RFC3987 does talk about doing that in theory. > > JC> Jeremy > > JC> Chris Lilley wrote: >>> On Wednesday, April 18, 2007, 9:03:19 PM, Sandro wrote: > >>>>> The value of an xml:base attribute is not so limited: it can contain >>>>> (almost) arbitrary Unicode, which is %-escaped before being used >>>>> to alter the base URI property of the element on which it appears >>>>> and the element's children. > >>> SH> Percent-escaping has got to be among the 10 most confusing and confused >>> SH> subjects in the history of computing. :-) > >>> This is why its better if computers do it, and humans see the real characters. > >>> SH> My sense is that the 2001 XML Base Recommendation [1] is very confused >>> SH> about how to handle percent-escaping. Of course, it long predated IRIs, >>> SH> so this isn't so surprising. > >>> I agree that the newer PER is clearer. > >>> SH> There is a Proposed Edited Recommendation [2] which, to my mind, is much >>> SH> clearer about this. It says, essentially, don't do percent-escaping. >>> SH> XML is safe for Unicode, so just use Unicode. > >>> Which is pretty much what > >>> The set of characters allowed in xml:base attributes is the same as >>> for XML, namely [Unicode]. However, some Unicode characters are >>> disallowed from URI references, and thus processors must encode and >>> escape these characters to obtain a valid URI reference from the >>> attribute value. > >>> says. The improvement in the PER is to clarify that the 'processor' is >>> the software which reads the XML attribute value and constructs a URI >>> to fetch; not, as it could be read, the software which creates the XML >>> document. > > > > > > >
Received on Thursday, 19 April 2007 14:25:43 UTC