• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: XML Base (RE: Article: Keeping pace with James Clark)
• From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
• Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 12:45:47 -0700
• In-reply-to: <r01050300-1015-9F584FF89A7D11D681C10003937A08C2@[192.168.124.21]>
• References: <r01050300-1015-9F584FF89A7D11D681C10003937A08C2@[192.168.124.21]>

Simon St.Laurent wrote:

> > Simon wrote:
> > >I think XML Base is useful for people too lazy to type complete URIs.
> >
> > That's true, but there's a bigger use case. For documents that are
> > relocatable between local and remote (say file: and http: schemes),
> > relative URIs are a necessity. Not surprisingly, this is a common
> > request in XML forms processing.
>
> But if you're relocating documents between local and remote contexts,
> why are you using XML Base?


I can't think of any circumstance in which it makes sense
to put an xml:base attribute in a source document, but
it could be useful in documents that are the result of
some transformation.

For example: an XInclude processor that resolves and
transcludes referenced subdocuments could add 'xml:base'
attributes to the root element of transcluded subdocuments,
so that relative URIs therein are interpreted correctly.

The advantage of putting this information in an _attribute_
instead of in a nonreserializable "[base URI] information 
set item" should be obvious.



--Joe English

  jenglish@f...

• References:
  • RE: XML Base (RE: Article: Keeping pace with James Clark)
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Schema Namespace name, schemaLocation, and Schema V ersioning
• Next by Date: Re: Schema Namespace name, schemaLocation, and Schema V
• Previous by thread: RE: XML Base (RE: Article: Keeping pace with James Clark)
• Next by thread: Re: XML Base (RE: Article: Keeping pace with James Clark)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread