Re: Added proposal to make xml:base generally applicable

[Sam Ruby <rubys@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tim Bray wrote:
> 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.

Let me put this in the form of a question, then.  The proposed wording 
contains the phrase "and also to relative URI references found inside 
<content>".  How about relative URI references inside of <summary>?  If 
<content> is explicitly called out, does that mean that summary was 
explicitly omitted?

- Sam Ruby