Re: A proposed solution

Paul Grosso wrote:


> At 17:50 2000 06 08 -0400, Jonathan Borden wrote:
> >How about (requiring this condition)
> >
> >    * Existing documents which have a defined infoset will continue to
have
> >a defined infoset.

    More variations on the same old problem....

the document located at:

    file://example.xml

    <example xmlns:a="file://XXX/example.xml/YYY" xmlns:b="./YYY">
        <zzzz a:a="1" b:a="2" />
    </example>


    is moved to:

    file://XXX/example.xml


    now it doesn't have an infoset (on the basis of not being namespace
conformant)

> >
> >... in order to meet this I think XBase will need to be scrapped.
>
> How so?  Not only doesn't XML Base have much anything to do
> with the current discussion (see my previous posting [1]),
> but existing documents couldn't have xml:base in them, so
> how can existing documents be affected by XML Base at all?

But 'new' documents produced by existing tools which create relative URI
references might cause new problems.

the document:

    <example xml:base="file://XXX/example.xml"
xmlns:a="file://XXX/example.xml/YYY" xmlns:b="./YYY">
        <zzzz a:a="1" b:a="2" />
    </example>

has an infoset if the parser isn't XBase conformant, and not if the parser
conforms to XBase ... note that once XBase is RECd, the document will become
'legal' yet there is no requirement that a preexisting parser implement it.

I'm not actually suggesting XBase be scrapped, rather pointing out problems
with XBase that are introduced *if* absolutization is specified. Such
problems would not exist if either a) literal comparison  or b) forbid is
specified.

Jonathan

>
> paul
>
> p.s.  Furthermore, any supposedly problematic situation you
> can get into with XML Base, you can probably already get into
> with external entities.

more reason not to absolutize!!!

Received on Thursday, 8 June 2000 19:07:42 UTC