Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Tim Bray wrote: > I always thought the strongest argument for xml:base was that the > HTML base element was so useful; you could move a whole tree of web > pages, with relative hyperlinks, around in a nice clean way, and use > "base" to make sure that relative links were fetched from where you > wanted them fetched from, not based on on relative processing of > whatever random URL led someone to the first page. I have to admit that I'm thoroughly confused by people talking about moving document trees with relative links AND using BASE to ensure that links came from a particular location. You can do one or the other at any given point, but both simultaneously is a contradition. > So far I'm not seeing an overwhelming demand for xml:base. On the > other hand it's simple, easy to understand, architecturally clean, > and easy to implement. The jury may stil be out. I question whether XML Base is anywhere near "architecturally clean". It seems to combine value-by-inheritance headaches with the continuing nightmare of URI absolutization - not clean in any sense that I can imagine. On the other hand, if you know of a convenient scheme-agnostic way to absolutize URLs in XSLT that takes into account their base URI (whether from base doc or external entity), xml:base, and whether they needed to be absolutized in the first place, please let me know. -- Simon St.Laurent Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets Errors, errors, all fall down! http://simonstl.com
|
