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

Is this correct? Do identifiers refer only to the current document? 

I assumed you could have a dictionary page, www.somedictionary.com/a.html, set using xml:base, and then have @target values in a <ref> of #apple, #apricot, and #avocado. 

Is that not right? 

(Sent from John's iPhone 6.)

> On May 2, 2017, at 2:36 PM, Hugh Cayless <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Unless I'm just confused, a fragment identifier (#whatever) won't, at least in HTTP(S)-land, result in a new dereference, regardless of the value of @xml:base. They exclusively refer to parts of the same document, so there's no possibility for confusion. @xml:base only applies to any relative URIs in your document.
> 
> In any case, I'm firmly of the opinion that @xml:base is one of those too-clever-by-half ideas that should be avoided like the plague.
> 
> If I'm wrong, I'd be happy to be educated!
> 
> All the best,
> Hugh
> 
>> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 2:19 PM, Martin Holmes <[email protected]> wrote:
>> HI Piotr,
>> 
>> I must admit I don't really understand the problem here. If there's efficiency to be gained from using @xml:base (shorter pointers in many pointing attributes), but it causes other pointers (such as @rendition) to be more difficult to handle, I would use a private URI scheme and a <prefixDef> to handle it.
>> 
>> One unanswered question might be whether the dereferencing process in a prefixDef is supposed to take account of @xml:base, though...
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Martin
>> 
>> 
>>> On 2017-05-02 11:10 AM, Piotr Banski wrote:
>>> 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
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>