- From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 08:17:19 -0700
- To: "'Lloyd Rutledge'" <Lloyd.Rutledge@cwi.nl>, www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org
- Cc: symm@w3.org, Patrick Schmitz <pschmitz@microsoft.com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lloyd Rutledge [mailto:Lloyd.Rutledge@cwi.nl]
> > Does the following syntax proposal illustrate your request?
> >
> > <a xml:base="http://www.media.com">
> > <mediabase id="video" xml:base="/daily/video"/>
> > <mediabase id="audio" xml:base="/daily/audio"/>
> > <b xml:baseref="video">vid1</b>
> > <c xml:baseref="audio">aud1</c>
> > </a>
> >
> > b = http://www.media.com/daily/video/vid1
> > c = http://www.media.com/daily/audio/aud1
> > (and "id" is of type ID).
>
> I'd rework the syntax as:
>
> <head>
> <xml:base id="video" xml:base="/daily/video"/>
> <xml:base id="audio" xml:base="/daily/audio"/>
> </head>
> <body>
> <par>
> <video xml:baseref="video" src="billwaves.mpg"/>
> <audio xml:baseref="audio" src="billtalks.au"/>
> </par>
> </body>
>
> > Of course, there are circularity problems with this
> particular approach...
>
> ... can you elaborate?
>
One of the first things I'd attempt with this would be to retrofit the HTML
BASE so I could write a single document that would have the same base under
text/xml and text/html:
<html xml:baseref="htmlbase">
<head>
<base id="htmlbase" xml:base="..."/>
...
This example is circular if xml:base happens to contain a relative URI. Can
we define references in such a way that works or must we just report an
error?
> We would not augment XML Base. We would add SMIL-specific and
> SMIL-only constructs to SMIL's use of XML Base. That is, we would use
> the XBase constructs of non-referential establishing of URI bases.
> And we would dot all the XML i's and cross all the XML t's in doing so
> (so we hope ;). For referential URI bases, we would make SMIL
> constructs such as those used in the example syntax above. This would
> existing in the SMIL namespace and would not be recognized as XBase.
> Their behavior would be stated in the SMIL specification.
>
> This would mean that SMIL browsers would resolve different URI's than
> non-SMIL XBase-aware XML processors would.
Exactly my point. I don't think this is desireable.
How badly does SMIL need this capability? Are you already planning
something similar or are you thinking ahead to a future version?
- Jonathan Marsh
Received on Monday, 3 July 2000 11:18:49 UTC