Disposition of Comments on XML Base Candidate Recommendation (original) (raw)

2.1. Technical Errors and Clarifications

2.1.2. Allowing non-absolute xml:base attribute values

Source: James Clark,http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-linking-ig/2000Aug/0007.html (members only). Also see linking issues list [XB11] (members only).

James states: "Allowing the value of xml:base to be relative seems like an unnecessary complication to me. In HTML 4.0, a base URI specified by the BASE element is required to be absolute (http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/links.html#edef-BASE). The Content-Base MIME header defined in RFC 2110 also requires an absolute URI."

Resolution: (members only) Declined. Neither HTML nor Content-Base allow for scoped bases, and thus aren't equivalent to xml:base in this respect. Rejecting relative URIs when there is an obvious meaning and a convenience argument may prove confusing to users. It would be a bit odd for a specification defining how relative URIs are used not to take advantage of the features it describes. It is not a significant enough problem to warrant a change during CR.

2.1.3. Describe XML Base for comments?

Source: Jonathan Marsh,http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-linking-ig/2000Oct/0068.html (members only). Also see linking issues list [XB10] (members only).

XML Base does not specify the base for URI References appearing in comments. Do we want to do anything about this? (pro) For consistency, we should describe the base for URI References everywhere they could appear in an XML document, and this includes comments. (con) The content of a comment is not interpretable as anything but text, and cannot be recognized as a URI Reference in any kind of a standard way. XML Base therefore does not apply. Mentioning it might encourage people to put processable information inside comments which is abusive.

Resolution: (members only) Declined. No clarifying note is necessary as this issue didn't arise from the public.