- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 12:56:26 -0600
- To: w3c-xml-linking-wg@w3.org
- CC: w3c-xml-core-wg@w3.org, www-xml-infoset-comments@w3.org
[W3C Members, note well: this message is copied to www-xml-infoset-comments, a public forum. So if just "reply all" your message will be publicly readable. Feel free to delete from the cc: line before you send your reply. Other folks: some references are to member-confidential materials. Sorry.] Linking WG folks, In response to "Issue (xmlbase:namespaces-compatibility): Should Namespaces be extended to take xml:base attributes into account?" -- http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WD-xmlbase-19991220 The XML Core WG decided, on 5 Jan, that yes they should: "Resolved: that xml:base affects relative namespace names in namespace declarations. [...] ACTION to Dan to send email to XLink WG cc-ing XML Core WG and Infoset comment mailing lists about this. DECISION: we will also add xml:base to Infoset. DECISION: we will add Namespaces 1.1 to our task list and add a discussion xml:base to it. ACTION to Paul: add this to our task list (done). NOTE: This will also require a change to XSLT." http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-core-wg/2000JanMar/0020.html For background, including an example that will (hopefully) clarify the issue to yourselves and, if you/we put it in the XBase/Namespaces spec, to our readers, please see the thread starting with: if we do XBase, do it for xmlns too From: Dan Connolly (connolly@w3.org) Date: Tue, Jan 04 2000 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-core-wg/2000JanMar/0002.html Note also the dissenting opinion: Reasons for not incorporating xbase into the namespace spec (Tue, Jan 04 2000) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-core-wg/2000JanMar/0009.html -- Dan Connolly http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 11 January 2000 13:58:00 UTC