- 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