My pen and notepad are now firnly in place of where my keyboard once was...
well, speaking in the terms just slighty in the future...
like right now..; :)
On 3/30/06,
James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would agree that, as a best practice, the xml:base should appear on
the content element, but implementations need to be prepared to use
whatever the in-scope URI is (e.g. if no xml:base is specified, relative
refs in the content will be relative to Content-Location or the feeds
Request URI). In other words, consumers of the feed *have* to assume
that the current xml:base in context is going to be correct and
publishers of the feed simply have to be responsible for Doing The Right
Thing.
- James
M. David Peterson wrote:
> Then it should be a best practice that if they invoke
> this, the xml:base value should be set upon the "element containing the text", in this case, the content element.
> Obviously
> you can't simply assume that the current xml:base in context has
> any direct relation, and therefore value to the current entry/content in context, as, using Aristotle's use case (and a billion others just like it
> -- if not a billion now, it won't be too long before that number is
> quite realistic, and in fact only scratching the Atom feed surface of
> the not too distant
> future), there is no way that one can simply assume that the current @xml:base value is legit.
>
>
> It seems to me that this current definition of xml:base didn't take into
> consideration the fact that the world would soon be revolving around XML
> mashups, all of which can contain any number of possible combinations of URI's of which may have absolutely nothing even remotely in common with another.
>
>
> Seems like maybe its time for a quick update to the xml:base definition,
> as this is not just an issue that effects Atom syndication feeds.
>
> On 3/30/06, * James M Snell* < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>
>
> In retrospect, it likely would have been a good idea for us to have
> covered this in the Atom spec. The definition of xml:base does include
> a statement that "[t]he base URI for a URI reference appearing in text
> content is the base URI of the element containing the text." That would
> include URI references contained within the escaped HTML markup of Text
> constructs and the content element.
>
> - James
>
> Sean Lyndersay wrote:
> >
> > This is unfortunate, because HTML itself only allows <base>
> elements in the header (one per page). So if anyone wants to build a
> client that displays more than one item at a time using a standard
> HTML renderer (and most client render HTML using someone else's
> renderer, not their own), they have to go groveling in HTML to do
> URL fixup (or use iframes).
> >
> > In my own case (IE7) case, this isn't that big a deal because we
> have to grovel in HTML for many other reasons, but I suspect it'd be
> pain for other clients.
> >
> > My own reading goes like this: Since xml:base is an XML concept,
> it should apply only to relative references in XML content
> (including XHTML). From the XML perspective, the HTML content is
> just a string, so the xml:base should not apply.
> >
> > Sean
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] On Behalf Of Tim Bray
> > Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 10:49 AM
> > To: David Powell
> > Cc: Atom Syntax
> > Subject: Re: Does xml:base apply to type="html" content?
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mar 23, 2006, at 10:03 AM, David Powell wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> xml:base applies to type="xhtml" content, but I'm not sure whether it
> >> is supposed to apply to escaped type="html" content? I reckon
> that it
> >> does.
> >
> > RFC4287, section 2:
> >
> > Any element defined by this specification MAY have an xml:base
> > attribute [ W3C.REC-xmlbase-20010627]. When xml:base is used in an
> > Atom Document, it serves the function described in section
> 5.1.1 of
> > [RFC3986], establishing the base URI (or IRI) for resolving any
> > relative references found within the effective scope of the
> xml:base
> > attribute.
> >
> > Seems pretty clear to me. Yes, the base URI of that HTML is now
> > whatever xml:base said it was -Tim
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> <M:D/>
>
> M. David Peterson
> http://www.xsltblog.com/ <http://www.xsltblog.com/>
--
<M:D/>
M. David Peterson
http://www.xsltblog.com/
