- From: Romain Deltour <rdeltour@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 20:04:36 +0200
- To: Florent Georges <fgeorges@fgeorges.org>
- Cc: Erik Siegel <mailing@xatapult.nl>, XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
Yeah, setting the root node's base URI is what we do too. And we later remove xml:base attribute. Note however that it doesn't set the base URI of the *document*, only of its root element. +1 for a p:set-base-uri, which is in the v2 reqs: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/xproc-v2-req.html#xml-base Romain. On 8 oct. 2013, at 18:09, Florent Georges <fgeorges@fgeorges.org> wrote: > Hi, > > Yes, this is a problem. The "solution" I use is to add an attribute > xml:base to the root element, to change the document base URI. The > problem is that it actually modifies the document, and it might fail > validation later on, when it is read back from the archive (I have > this exact problem, so I need to modify the document by stripping the > xml:base attribute before validating it). > > But that's the best one I found till now. I think what we need is a > standard step p:set-base-uri, to set the base URI of a document, > and/or a way to set the base URI of a document flowing through any > output port. > > Regards, > > -- > Florent Georges > http://fgeorges.org/ > http://h2oconsulting.be/ > > > On 8 October 2013 15:14, Erik Siegel wrote: >> Hi, >> >> >> >> I'm lost on how to use Calabash pxp:zip... can't figure out how to do >> this... I hope anybody can help me >> >> >> >> I need to store several pieces of XML produced by (sub)pipelines. So >> according to the documentation in >> http://exproc.org/proposed/steps/other.html#zip I need to supply these as a >> sequence on the source port of the pxp:zip step and use a zip-manifest that >> refers to the base-uri's of these documents and tells pxp:zip where to put >> them in the zip file. >> >> >> >> But.. all my documents are produced by my XProc script and (as far as I can >> see) all have the same base-uri. How can I ever distinguish between them? >> >> >> >> The only solution I can think of is storing them first to disk and then read >> them back in. Which does not sound like good solution to me. >> >> >> >> Hope anybody can help, >> >> Regards, >> Erik Siegel >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 8 October 2013 18:05:06 UTC