In retrospect, it likely would have been a good idea for us to have covered this in the Atom spec. The definition of xml:base does include a statement that "[t]he base URI for a URI reference appearing in text content is the base URI of the element containing the text." That would include URI references contained within the escaped HTML markup of Text constructs and the content element.
- James Sean Lyndersay wrote: > > This is unfortunate, because HTML itself only allows <base> elements in the > header (one per page). So if anyone wants to build a client that displays > more than one item at a time using a standard HTML renderer (and most client > render HTML using someone else's renderer, not their own), they have to go > groveling in HTML to do URL fixup (or use iframes). > > In my own case (IE7) case, this isn't that big a deal because we have to > grovel in HTML for many other reasons, but I suspect it'd be pain for other > clients. > > My own reading goes like this: Since xml:base is an XML concept, it should > apply only to relative references in XML content (including XHTML). From the > XML perspective, the HTML content is just a string, so the xml:base should > not apply. > > Sean > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Bray > Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 10:49 AM > To: David Powell > Cc: Atom Syntax > Subject: Re: Does xml:base apply to type="html" content? > > > > On Mar 23, 2006, at 10:03 AM, David Powell wrote: > >> >> xml:base applies to type="xhtml" content, but I'm not sure whether it >> is supposed to apply to escaped type="html" content? I reckon that it >> does. > > RFC4287, section 2: > > Any element defined by this specification MAY have an xml:base > attribute [W3C.REC-xmlbase-20010627]. When xml:base is used in an > Atom Document, it serves the function described in section 5.1.1 of > [RFC3986], establishing the base URI (or IRI) for resolving any > relative references found within the effective scope of the xml:base > attribute. > > Seems pretty clear to me. Yes, the base URI of that HTML is now > whatever xml:base said it was -Tim > > >
