Re: @xml:base with @rendition (and maybe other pointers)

Hi Martin,

So if you have a <ref> with both a @target that is resolved via xml:base 
in your project, and with @rendition, will your strategy be to cancel 
xml:base on this very element for the sake of @rendition and therefore 
use a full URL for the @target (think about how nicely un-maintainable 
it's going to be) OR will your strategy be to use some kind of 
"file://.#bing" magic (<-- would that even work, sustainably?) ?

Whichever you choose, the result is going to be suboptimal. I was just 
suggesting localizing this suboptimality in such a way as to make it 
useful for other purposes. I for one would be quite happy to have 
attributes which could only be interpreted as fragment identifiers 
resolvable against the current document.

Best,

   P.


On 05/02/17 17:19, Martin Holmes wrote:
> I think the same rules should apply to all pointer types. John is 
> right to remind us of something I've been guilty of many times over: 
> writing pointer-handling code that doesn't think to look at @xml:base. 
> But that's my fault, not the fault of XML or TEI. I think the 
> semantics of @xml:base and the semantics of pointers are clear and 
> should be consistently implemented for all attributes and ids. If 
> there's an @xml:base, all pointers in the document should be resolved 
> based on it.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> On 2017-05-02 06:46 AM, Piotr Bański wrote:
>> One thought is to introduce a tei.localref datatype that would be
>> defined as an XML name prepended with a '#'. That could help in cases
>> where one would like to create (by means of Schematron[1]) an analogy to
>> the IDREF mechanism. And since the type wouldn't be defined as an URI,
>> xml:base expansion wouldn't apply to it.
>>
>> [1] Maybe the Schematron check should even be an internal part of the
>> definition of that datatype, to force document() -- except I am not so
>> sure how "document()" would behave in such cases. I'd love to be
>> enlightened.
>>
>> Musing aloud,
>>   Piotr
>>
>> On 05/02/17 14:46, John P. McCaskey wrote:
>>> @rendition has datatype teidata.pointer. Pointers can point to 
>>> locations
>>> either within the current document or elsewhere. They should be 
>>> expanded
>>> with any @xml:base attributes up the XML tree.
>>>
>>> But @rendition is supposed to point to an element in the tagsDecl
>>> element, normally within the same document, though presumably it could
>>> be the tagsDecl in some other document.
>>>
>>> My question: Is it really the case that a rendition pointer should 
>>> honor
>>> parent @xml:base attributes?
>>>
>>> I guess the theoretical answer is yes, but I can imagine cases where 
>>> the
>>> @xml:base attributes are primarily for setting image paths, .xml
>>> directories, and http addresses, and the coder does not really intend
>>> the @rendition attributes to point externally.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>