[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

xml:base

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: xml:base
• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 12:53:26 -0700
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.1a) Gecko/20020610

[Hmm.. I sent 3 or 4 msgs to xml-dev on Tuesday and they went into the 
bit bucket, perhaps because xml-dev was on the Cc: not the To: line?]

Simon St.Laurent wrote:

 >I think it's time to take a long hard look at XML Base and question
 >whether this spec:

 >a) is useful
 >b) is necessary
 >c) belongs in the "XML Core"

 >On (a), I think XML Base is useful for people too lazy to type complete
 > URIs.

I always thought the strongest argument for xml:base was that the HTML 
base element was so useful; you could move a whole tree of web pages, 
with relative hyperlinks, around in a nice clean way, and use "base" to 
make sure that relative links were fetched from where you wanted them 
fetched from, not based on on relative processing of whatever random URL 
led someone to the first page.

So far I'm not seeing an overwhelming demand for xml:base.  On the other 
hand it's simple, easy to understand, architecturally clean, and easy to 
implement.  The jury may stil be out. -Tim

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: xml:base
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Announce: XML Schema, The W3C's Object-Oriented Des criptions for XML
• Next by Date: Schemas, namespaces, versioning
• Previous by thread: xml question - new line
• Next by thread: Re: xml:base
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread