David Powell wrote:
Quoting Bill de hÓra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Why would we would mandate short-circuiting xml:base processing for XHTML via spec text, but default namespace processing via markup signals? Consistency would suggest some kind of wrapper/marker for xml:base.
I don't really understand what you mean by a wrapper/marker, can you give an example?
atom:[EMAIL PROTECTED]"freebase|nobase"] ?
Just kidding...
No, the thing is these two are similar problems structurally insofar as processing directives from the Atom layer are bleeding into the content. The way we're currently solving the namespace problem is via a xhtml:div tag in the format, plus spec text. The way Rob's suggesting we solve the xml:base directive is not via the format, just spec text. Also from one perspective, the latter case prefers a profiling of xml:base's scope whereas the former prefers to format defensively against namespace scope. Foolish inconsistencies notwithstanding, I would prefer we had a consistent approach here, since I'm not sure we've seen the last possible scoping issue.
cheers Bill
