W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org > October to December 2008

Re: xml:base

From: Brett Zamir <brettz9@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 07:18:36 +0800
Message-ID: <490F86CC.10205@yahoo.com>
To: Richard Tobin <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk>
CC: www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org
Richard Tobin wrote:
>> I see (responding to your point about it not being related to ancestor 
>> elements). But I was trying to find somewhere where the issue was made 
>> explicit as to how xml:base is not only based on the parent, since there 
>> are these following lines (and basically only these lines on the topic) 
>> which only refer to "parent element" and not clearly to an indefinite 
>> number of levels of inheritance of within the document (and regardless 
>> of whether xml:base was explicitly present on the parent or not, etc.):
>> "The base URI of an element is...the base URI of the element's parent 
>> element within the document or external entity, if one exists..."
>> "The base URI for a URI reference appearing in an |xml:base| attribute 
>> is the base URI of the parent element of the element bearing the 
>> |xml:base| attribute, if one exists within the document entity or 
>> external entity, otherwise the base URI of the document entity or 
>> external entity containing the element."
>> Maybe that is made clear in other referenced specs, but since this seems 
>> to be such a central point of the spec, I would think clarifying that 
>> would be helpful.
> The answer follows from the rules you quote above.  Given
> <a xml:base="http://example.com">
>   <b>
>     <c> ...
> the base URI of the <c> element is (by 4.2 part 2) the base URI
> of the <b> element.  Similarly, the base URI of the <b> element
> is the base URI of the <a> element.  And by 4.2 part 1, the base
> URI of the <a> element is "http://example.com".

Yes, I am aware that this is the intention, but by specifying "parent" 
(without reference to recursion), it raises the question of whether it 
is constrained to this and whether a base URI must be explicit except 
for an immediate child.

With the phrase "if one exists" in these rules (while I know its 
intention), I think this also raises the question about whether this 
might refer to whether an explicit definition exists.

I know that the answer can be derived, but I think some extra note or 
qualification could help make it more explicit.


Received on Monday, 3 November 2008 23:19:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:08:18 UTC