Sjoerd Visscher wrote: > > Hi, > > A while ago we had a discussion about how xml:base should be used. > We didn't reach a conclusion, but I think we need to act. > > The way Tim Bray's feed and the examples from James Snell on > developerWorks use xml:base is what Roy T. Fielding calls an abuse. > > Now I think that no matter what we decide, we should not do something > that the writer of the URI spec thinks is an abuse. > > More here: > http://w3future.com/weblog/2005/08/#howToUseBaseUris
I would prefer to deal with what the spec actually says. As you point out, it is "really odd" that nothing was added to the new RFC 3986 to support your position. The authors of DOM3 looked at both the xml:base and InfoSet specifications. I've taken a look at how two respected XML parsers have implemented DOM3: http://www.intertwingly.net/blog/2005/08/12/xml-base-support - Sam Ruby
