Re: Added proposal to make xml:base generally applicable

[Tim Bray <tbray@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Feb 27, 2004, at 7:04 AM, James Aylett wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 08:40:22AM -0500, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> > Agreed.  However, I think that enumeration would make this clearer and
> > simpler.
>
> We need to enumerate which elements have content of type URI, agreed.

I'm not sure.  My proposed wording is "XML Base [REC-xmlbase-20010627] 
processing MUST be applied to any relative URI reference which appears 
where Atom specifies a URI".  I.e., everywhere that Atom says "put a 
URI here" you just know that if the URI is relative and if there's an 
xml:base in scope, then it applies.  It seems like bad spec design to 
have to put the information about the URI-ness of protocol elements in 
two places.

People are correct in saying that the tricky bit is figuring out the 
right way to describe the desired effect inside Content.

> Reading RFC 2396, and the HTML 4.01 spec

Agreed.  Actually, I suspect the smart thing to do is to call out to 
the text of RFC2396bis (still under development); this language has 
been improved quite a bit.  See 
http://gbiv.com/protocols/uri/rev-2002/rfc2396bis.html#base-uri

In particular Atom's doing what section 5.1.2 in that document 
describes. -Tim

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature