> Is there really a use case for a Base URIs per binding? I think more accurately it's base URI per binding per node.
>If not then i think > we should leave this off here for now. How the base uri works is always > causing problems, we've a work item to sort it out in 2.x, and it doesn't atm we rely on the base URI being translated into an actual binding URI in the composite file. IIUC What trips people up is 1/ the default that is employed when no binding URI is specified 2/ the adoption of container URIs regardless of what the composite file says. > work properly in 2.x right now anyway. So it seems like it would be better > to not preempt how we fix it by including it here till we know whats going > to happen. > > ...ant
