> However, exempting [EMAIL PROTECTED]'html'` content from xml:base processing > won't help.
Agreed and an excellent point. I guess that the end-result of this is that regardless of how one wants to interpret any of the relevant specs on this issue, a client should assume that xml:base applies to URI references in @type="html" content. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of A. Pagaltzis Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 6:31 PM To: Atom Syntax Subject: Re: Does xml:base apply to type="html" content? * Sean Lyndersay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-03-31 04:00]: >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). That's exactly the problem currently facing Liferea. However, exempting [EMAIL PROTECTED]'html'` content from xml:base processing won't help. If the items can come from multiple feeds, such as is supported by Liferea, then mixing items from an Atom feed that uses xml:base and other feeds automatically runs into the same issue. In that scenario, either the tag soup from the other feeds must be fixed up so the view can be rendered as XHTML (which supports xml:base in content), or URL fixup needs to be done on the content from the Atom feed so it can be passed to a tag soup renderer. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
