W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-uri@w3.org > May 2000

Re: inclusion

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 09:26:38 -0400 (EDT)
To: xml-uri@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0005250917390.23921-100000@tux.w3.org>

A comment on terminology, prompted by (rather than a criticism of) this

On Thu, 25 May 2000 keshlam@us.ibm.com wrote:

> The usual reading of "base URI" is that it's the base URI of the entity,
> not of whatever references the entity.
> On the other hand, the namespace spec was not completely clear on the
> question of what happens when a parsed entity reference/xinclude/whatever
> brings in an entity which has prefixes that aren't defined in that entity
> and hence isn't "namespace-well-formed". Should it be an error? Should it
> attempt to bind to namespaces active at the point of inclusion?

This debate sprawls across HTTP, URI and XML territory. I had trouble
reading the above as I wasn't sure whether to read 'entity' as 'XML
entity' or 'HTTP entity', both of which have specific, and rather
different, technical meaning. Mostly this can be figured out from context,
but it would make these threads easier to track if authors were explicit
when using 'entity' (and possibly other overloaded terms that appear in
these specs).


Received on Thursday, 25 May 2000 09:26:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:13:58 UTC