Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: XML Base (RE: Article: Keeping pace with James C
 > Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote: > > Only xml:base could arguably > > be claimed to be at the semantic level, and even that is less > > semantic than xml:lang. > > 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. Why exactly those people are typing their XML directly (i.e. > there's no app to fill in their URIs for them) when they're that lazy is > beyond me. For these people XML Base ensures that they don't have to > worry about moving documents from point A to point B and having all the > links break. They can also save a few bytes of redundant information, > though again why they'd be concerned about that when they're using XML > is beyond me. I think it's ridiculously harsh to characterize XML:Base as useful only for people who are too lazy to type URIs. XML Base is a handy tool for solving a particular class of problems involving interpretation of relative URIs in content. One possible solution for this is to eliminate the allowance of relative URIs in content. Not that I agree with this, but as long as relative URIs are allowed in content, XML Base will be useful for solving real problems that have nothing to do with laziness. > On (b), I think the answer is quite plainly NO. XML Base is never > necessary. You can always type out URIs, and you can even do a > search-and-replace if necessary. Well lots of things in XML are never necessary. How about (non-character-reference) entities? How about comments? processing instructions? I don't argue getting rid of these (and the many other such things I didn't mention) myself. Of course, sometimes you do have to draw the line: the PSVI, for instance, gives me a red mist before my eyes largely because of its complexity. If it were as simple as XML Base, I could probably live with my fundamental disagreement with it. > On (c), I think we have some enormous problems. XML Base by itself > provides a base URI, but it's up to the application to figure out how to > use that information. Yes. And some applications are: RDF, XSLT and XLink. I don't see the problem with this. > The XML Infoset prescribes no particular handling > for this information or combination with URIs, and the XML Base > specification itself states that: > -------------------------------------- > The deployment of XML Base is through normative reference by new > specifications, for example XLink and the XML Infoset. Applications and > specifications built upon these new technologies will natively support > XML Base. The behavior of xml:base attributes in applications based on > specifications that do not have direct or indirect normative reference > to XML Base is undefined. > -------------------------------------- > > The Infoset has some fine language about "computed according to [XML > Base]", but it's hardly clear how this metadata is to be applied - or > represented, in the case of document fragmentation, for instance. This sounds like a case were the Infoset needs to be clarified. > It would be nice to keep such frivolous bits out of the XML Core, I > think. It's certainly possible that you're right, but personally, I'm not yet convinced. -- Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc. http://uche.ogbuji.net http://4Suite.org http://fourthought.com Track chair, XML/Web Services One Boston: http://www.xmlconference.com/ The many heads of XML modeling - http://adtmag.com/article.asp?id=6393 Will XML live up to its promise? - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/li brary/x-think11.html 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
