Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> On May 7, 2017, at 1:43 PM, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@b...> wrote: > > >> On May 7, 2017, at 2:54 AM, Andrew S. Townley <ast@a...> wrote: >> ... > >> >> Conceivably, the given vocabulary could define attributes that were aware of XML Base for URI resolution and some that were not. > > That strikes me as being a logical contradiction. If the latter class are said to be URIs, then the only way to resolve them is with reference to the base URI. If xml:base is being used, then the base URI is as given by the xml:base attributes and the rules in XML Base and 3986. On further thought, that’s probably stated too sharply. In the absence of a central authority for all things, it is probably open to any spec to say “we use xml:base to set the base URI for elements a, b, and c, but URIs in the contexts of elements d, e, and f use the ‘base’ element, and elements g, h, and i recognize no in-content base-URI settings at all. Most users will hate the authors of such a spec, with some justice, and it might be argued that the spec is not really using xml:base as specified. but until the jackbooted troops of the central authority arrive to make us sorry, we are always free to pick and choose, even if some of us think it’s better not to do so. ******************************************** C. M. Sperberg-McQueen Black Mesa Technologies LLC cmsmcq@b... http://www.blackmesatech.com ********************************************
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
