RE: xml:base (was Re: IRI meets RDF meets HTTP redirect)

Hi,

My two cents - Dave's got it right below.

Some of the recent comments in this thread seemed to imply that 
there are a small, manageable number of tools doing such resolution
and equivalence comparison.

But there are _lots_ of tools and there are literally thousands
of snippets of application and library code in some dozens of
programming languages doing this resolution and comparison.

The chance that most of the code snippet authors are going
to follow this obscure chain of referenced source documents
is zero.

Frank's right - stick to pure ASCII XML for the next decade,
if you want to avoid user surprises.  And that's a sad state
of affairs.

Cheers,
- Ira


Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI  49839
phone: +1-906-494-2434
email: imcdonald@sharplabs.com

-----Original Message-----
From: www-international-request@w3.org
[mailto:www-international-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Dave Pawson
Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 3:46 AM
To: semantic-web@w3.org; www-international@w3.org
Subject: Re: xml:base (was Re: IRI meets RDF meets HTTP redirect)



On 20/04/07, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>
>  > This situation is an interoperability mess.
>
> I don't think it as bad as it might appear.

It may be 'workable', but if you guys are having to jump through 4 specs
to find an interpretation, which is still open to debate, what hope for users?

Don't be surprised if you see various interpretations showing up in the wild.


It needs clarification, ideally in the source document, informatively
if not normatively.

-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.5.7/771 - Release Date: 4/21/2007 11:56 AM

Received on Saturday, 21 April 2007 21:21:25 UTC