Re: xml:base abuse

Sjoerd Visscher wrote: > > Sam Ruby wrote: > URI(doc) = http://www.w3future.com/weblog/rss.xml?notransform xml:base = http://w3future.com/weblog/rss.xml?notransform >>> >>> Ah, ok, I missed that. (Just to be sure, you added www yourself, or is >>> there a link to the feed somewhere wit

Re: xml:base abuse

Sam Ruby wrote: URI(doc) = http://www.w3future.com/weblog/rss.xml?notransform xml:base = http://w3future.com/weblog/rss.xml?notransform Ah, ok, I missed that. (Just to be sure, you added www yourself, or is there a link to the feed somewhere with www in it?) Your feed is available from both

Re: xml:base abuse

Sjoerd Visscher wrote: > > Sam Ruby wrote: > >> Sjoerd Visscher wrote: >> >>> Sam Ruby wrote: >>> >>> Sjoerd, I'd be interested in your comments on this: http://tinyurl.com/9o6y2 >>> >>> >>> The explanation in the documentation[1] is perfect. And it says "As the >>> current xml:ba

Re: xml:base abuse

A. Pagaltzis wrote: What do you think about what I said? Is @rel='self' being a same-document reference a problem? No. As long as xml:base is the same as the document URI. One thing to note is that when retrieving the document from the location @rel='self' refers to, as the external base URI

Re: xml:base abuse

* Sjoerd Visscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-08-21 14:50]: >> Except it’s a @rel='self' link, so you really do want it to >> resolve to . > > This was about the link in the solution in > http://www.feedvalidator.org/docs/warning/SameDocumentReference.html > which

Re: xml:base abuse

A. Pagaltzis wrote: * Sjoerd Visscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-08-21 13:40]: Regarding the solution, my first suggestion would be to change the xml:base to reference the atom document, e.g.: http://example.com/blog/feed.atom"; /> This is also more consistent with the explanation. Except

Re: xml:base abuse

* Sjoerd Visscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-08-21 13:40]: > Regarding the solution, my first suggestion would be to change > the xml:base to reference the atom document, e.g.: > > http://example.com/blog/feed.atom"; /> > > This is also more consistent with the explanation. Except it’s a @rel=

Re: xml:base abuse

Sam Ruby wrote: Sjoerd Visscher wrote: Sam Ruby wrote: Sjoerd, I'd be interested in your comments on this: http://tinyurl.com/9o6y2 The explanation in the documentation[1] is perfect. And it says "As the current xml:base in effect does not match the URI of the document", but this is not

Re: xml:base abuse

Sjoerd Visscher wrote: > Sam Ruby wrote: > >> Sjoerd, I'd be interested in your comments on this: >> >> http://tinyurl.com/9o6y2 > > The explanation in the documentation[1] is perfect. And it says "As the > current xml:base in effect does not match the URI of the document", but > this is not the

Re: xml:base abuse

Sam Ruby wrote: Sjoerd, I'd be interested in your comments on this: http://tinyurl.com/9o6y2 The explanation in the documentation[1] is perfect. And it says "As the current xml:base in effect does not match the URI of the document", but this is not the case in my feed, so I'm not sure why y

Re: xml:base abuse

Sjoerd Visscher wrote: > > Sam Ruby wrote: > >> Apparently, consuming tools are welcome to aggressively substitute >> references to the enclosing parent document of any element for any >> references that, when resolved according to xml:base, differ from that >> xml:base only in ways that deal wi

Re: xml:base abuse

Sjoerd Visscher wrote: > > Sam Ruby wrote: > >> Apparently, consuming tools are welcome to aggressively substitute >> references to the enclosing parent document of any element for any >> references that, when resolved according to xml:base, differ from that >> xml:base only in ways that deal wi

Re: xml:base abuse

Sam Ruby wrote: Apparently, consuming tools are welcome to aggressively substitute references to the enclosing parent document of any element for any references that, when resolved according to xml:base, differ from that xml:base only in ways that deal with normalization and fragment identifiers

Re: xml:base abuse

Robert Sayre wrote: > On 8/15/05, Sjoerd Visscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Yes, it's a known bug. >>https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=275689 > > Well, it's not clear from that bug that any Mozilla committers feel > it's wise to "fix." Even so, they seem to be leaning towards pat

Re: xml:base abuse

* Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-08-15 20:15]: > > That uses html:base, which sets the base URI for the entire > > document, not @xml:base, which sets the base URI for the > > element and its children. Your example is irrelevant. > > Oh no, not irrelevance! :) > > Both seem to do the job

Re: xml:base abuse

* Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-08-16 09:40]: > As long as we're picking on Tim's URI space... what happens in > this hypothetical situation: > > http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/hubble60.jpg";> > > alt="stars" > src="http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/hubble60.jpg"; /> > > T

Re: xml:base abuse

On 8/15/05, Sjoerd Visscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, it's a known bug. > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=275689 > Well, it's not clear from that bug that any Mozilla committers feel it's wise to "fix." Even so, they seem to be leaning towards patching html:a as a special ca

Re: xml:base abuse

Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: * Sjoerd Visscher wrote: It would be really cool if you would move the xml:base of the entry to the div, but as you have 2 divs per entry I can imagine you don't want to do that. Or you could change the base URI to f.e. When/200x/2005/08/14/Java-Net-Terms.atom (even i

Re: xml:base abuse

* Sjoerd Visscher wrote: >It would be really cool if you would move the xml:base of the entry to >the div, but as you have 2 divs per entry I can imagine you don't want >to do that. Or you could change the base URI to f.e. >When/200x/2005/08/14/Java-Net-Terms.atom (even if that doesn't >derefe

Re: xml:base abuse

Tim Bray wrote: On Aug 15, 2005, at 7:28 AM, Tim Bray wrote: The way Tim Bray's feed and the examples from James Snell on developerWorks use xml:base is what Roy T. Fielding calls an abuse. I disagree with Roy, Shouldn't he be the one who knows? He actually he made it into an abuse by

Re: xml:base abuse

Robert Sayre wrote: On 8/15/05, A. Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: * Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-08-15 19:05]: The implementors of Internet Explorer and Mozilla agree with Sam. http://www.franklinmint.fm/2005/08/15/base.html That uses html:base, which sets the base URI for

Re: xml:base abuse

On Aug 15, 2005, at 7:28 AM, Tim Bray wrote: The way Tim Bray's feed and the examples from James Snell on developerWorks use xml:base is what Roy T. Fielding calls an abuse. I disagree with Roy, but agree that the way my links were set up was a little surprising to the eye, so I tweaked.

Re: xml:base abuse

On 8/15/05, A. Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > * Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-08-15 19:05]: > > The implementors of Internet Explorer and Mozilla agree with > > Sam. > > > > http://www.franklinmint.fm/2005/08/15/base.html > > That uses html:base, which sets the base URI for th

Re: xml:base abuse

Sjoerd: While reading your linked post, I noticed this: "Finally I'd like to share a trick to set the base URI for escaped HTML in RSS and Atom: add a BASE element to the beginning of the HTML content." Maybe I shouldn't be, but I'd be surprised if that worked in too many aggregators. After all

Re: xml:base abuse

* Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-08-15 19:05]: > The implementors of Internet Explorer and Mozilla agree with > Sam. > > http://www.franklinmint.fm/2005/08/15/base.html That uses html:base, which sets the base URI for the entire document, not @xml:base, which sets the base URI for the el

Re: xml:base abuse

On 8/15/05, Sjoerd Visscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In the sentence above, you refer to "the base URI". I would interpret > > that as "the base URI of the document", not "the base URI of the element". > > It has to the base URI of the element, otherwise links can change > meaning when you

Re: xml:base abuse

Sam Ruby wrote: Sjoerd Visscher wrote: Not quite, it is a nitpick, but I think the source of our disagreement. Resolution is the procedure of making absolute paths from relative paths. So the link resolves to . But this is equal (string-equal) to the base URI, so

Re: xml:base abuse

Sjoerd Visscher wrote: > > Not quite, it is a nitpick, but I think the source of our disagreement. > Resolution is the procedure of making absolute paths from relative > paths. So the link resolves to . > But this is equal (string-equal) to the base URI, so this is

Re: xml:base abuse

Sam Ruby wrote: Sjoerd Visscher wrote: Let me show you some pseudo-code that implements how to dereference an atom link according to rfc3986: dereference(linkElement) = baseURI = linkElement.baseURI linkURI = makeAbsolute(linkElement.href, baseURI) if stripFragmentID(linkURI) == stripFragm

Re: xml:base abuse

Sjoerd Visscher wrote: > > Let me show you some pseudo-code that implements how to dereference an > atom link according to rfc3986: > > dereference(linkElement) = > baseURI = linkElement.baseURI > linkURI = makeAbsolute(linkElement.href, baseURI) > if stripFragmentID(linkURI) == stripFragm

Re: xml:base abuse

Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: * Sjoerd Visscher wrote: Now I think that no matter what we decide, we should not do something that the writer of the URI spec thinks is an abuse. "We" as in there is specific text in one of the atompub drafts that make misleading suggestions that are inconsistent wit

Re: xml:base abuse

* Sjoerd Visscher wrote: >A while ago we had a discussion about how xml:base should be used. >We didn't reach a conclusion, but I think we need to act. How to use xml:base is a matter of the xml:base specification and (less so) the resource identifier specifications. If you think xml:base is uncl

Re: xml:base abuse

On Aug 15, 2005, at 6:20 AM, Sjoerd Visscher wrote: Hi, A while ago we had a discussion about how xml:base should be used. We didn't reach a conclusion, but I think we need to act. The way Tim Bray's feed and the examples from James Snell on developerWorks use xml:base is what Roy T. Fiel

Re: xml:base abuse

Sam Ruby wrote: I would prefer to deal with what the spec actually says. As you point out, it is "really odd" that nothing was added to the new RFC 3986 to support your position. The authors of DOM3 looked at both the xml:base and InfoSet specifications. I've taken a look at how two respecte

Re: xml:base abuse

Sjoerd Visscher wrote: > > Hi, > > A while ago we had a discussion about how xml:base should be used. > We didn't reach a conclusion, but I think we need to act. > > The way Tim Bray's feed and the examples from James Snell on > developerWorks use xml:base is what Roy T. Fielding calls an abuse

xml:base abuse

Hi, A while ago we had a discussion about how xml:base should be used. We didn't reach a conclusion, but I think we need to act. The way Tim Bray's feed and the examples from James Snell on developerWorks use xml:base is what Roy T. Fielding calls an abuse. Now I think that no matter what we