* Sjoerd Visscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-19 12:35]: > I don't find applying same-document reference behaviour to > fragments of an aggregate document non-sensical. If I XInclude > a piece of XHTML that has same-document references in it, I > still want them to be same-document references, and they should > not link back to the original file.
It is and isn’t. I thought about it more, and found that there are cases where it is non-sensical and cases where it’s desirable, but I couldn’t verbalize the difference. Antone filled the gap in his reply below. I am not so negative about the xml:base TR anymore; both the TR as well as the RFC are to blame, to an extent, but it’s neither’s fault. * Antone Roundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-19 22:45]: > >That example says: the content of the root element can be > >found in the resource at <http://example.org/today/>, and the > >content of the olist tag can be found in the resource at > ><http://example.org/hotpicks/>. xml:base is quite apparently > >being used as “a prefix for calculating relative URIs” instead > >of “the source URI for the material found inside this tag.” > As you can see above, I reached the opposite conclusion. I’m not sure if I didn’t explain myself well (likely), or you misunderstood my (very brief) explanation, but I don’t think we’re in disagreement. Everything you’ve said about your own example document is exactly in line with my thinking. > The problem lies not in applying same-document reference > behavior, but in copying EXCERPTS from source documents that > have links to fragments that aren't part of the excerpt. The > same-document reference behavior is desirable if both the link > and the fragment it links to are copied into the destination > document. Yes!! Exactly. Thank you for finding that disctinction. It is the point I could feel and sense as I thought about this issue more, but couldn’t quite pin down. > But there is no way to link to non-excerpted fragments. The > URI spec would have to say that if the fragment isn't found in > the current document, you can fetch the base URI to see if it > exists there (it could even say that you can only do this if > the current base URI was embedded in the content). If the > fragment doesn't at the base URI, it's a broken link. Indeed, that would be the correct fix. > A hackish solution to the "Tim's Feed Conundrum" would be to > set xml:base not to 'http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/', but to > 'http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/foo', where "foo" doesn't > actually exist, but is just used to ensure that relative > references don't end up being identical to the base URI. Then, > instead of <link href='' /> (which would be a same-document > reference...I think I was wrong in the other thread), you could > say <link href='./' />. That’s hackish, but almost correct. Now substitute <foo> in that base URI for <ongoing.atom> and you get the real base URI for the Atom document. Further, <link href="./" /> then produces a correct alternate link, and <link rel="self" href="" /> is then a correct self-link. That is exactly what I proposed a few messages up in this thread. :-) Although at the time, I hadn’t cleared my thinking enough, so proposed the wrong xml:base for individual atom:entry tags, which was corrected by Sjoerd. > The other solution I can think of would be for the Atom spec to > say that the same-document reference rule from the URI spec > does not apply to the atom:link element. But that's kinda lame > too--it would basically mean that Atom uses base URIs as > prefixes for convenience, rather than to rectify the base URI > of data taken from somewhere else, which seems to me to be > their intent. Yes, I proposed the same. :-) Clearly, we are on the same page. And yes, it would be lame. Not an undue burden on implementors, as I also already argued, but conceptually it is lame indeed. Finally, I share the dismay you expressed at the beginning of your mail. This kind of sucks… Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
