[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Does xml:base apply to type="html" content?
Yeah, agreed... In fact, I think at this stage of the game my inexperience in understanding all that must be considered during the development of a standard as far reaching as Atom both is and, even more so, will be is beginning to show through. None-the-less, this is an area I want to learn as much as I possibly can, so I'm going to simply chill out in the background and take notes for a bit, as you all obviously understand these things FAR beyond what I could even imagine at this stage.
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..; :)
James M Snell <jasnell@xxxxxxxxx> 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
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.
> 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* <
> <mailto:jasnell@xxxxxxxxx>> 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: owner-atom-syntax@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:owner-atom-syntax@xxxxxxxxxxxx>] 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
> > attribute.
> > Seems pretty clear to me. Yes, the base URI of that HTML is now
> > whatever xml:base said it was -Tim
> M. David Peterson
M. David Peterson