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

On 5/2/2017 3:30 PM, Hugh Cayless wrote:

    I vote fragment ids ignore @xml:base!

I think that’s a risky and and unnatural limitation. 
@xml:base="http://www.dictionary.html/" followed by @xml:base="a.html" 
followed by @target="#apple" seems a good way to point to 
"http://www.dictionary.com/a.html#apple".

I’d prefer saying some named attributes (e.g., @rendition) ignore 
xml:base—which puts us back to
Piotr’s tei.localref.

But then there is some value is centralizing a project’s rendition 
mappings in one external file.

Hmm . . .




> Yes, hence my view of @xml:base as unintentionally evil. My reading of 
> the section of RFC 3986 you quote is that the dereferencing of a 
> fragment id should not result in fetching a new document (as it might 
> if @xml:base was different from the current document). Moreover, in 
> the same document, "#" is defined, along with "", as a same-document 
> reference, again regardless of the value of @xml:base, so I think the 
> implication is that fragment identifiers always refer to the current 
> document.
>
> All that said, there seems to be a fair amount of confusion out there 
> from my quick Googling around, leading to inconsistent 
> implementations. Also, the resolution of fragment IDs is dependent on 
> the media type, so I suppose in theory we get to pick what it does 
> :-). I vote fragment ids ignore @xml:base!
>
> If this is true, we really ought to say something about it in the 
> Guidelines so that implementors don't go off the rails.
>
> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Syd Bauman <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>     Martin has taken the words right out of my mouth:
>     > One unanswered question might be whether the dereferencing process
>     > in a prefixDef is supposed to take account of @xml:base, though...
>
>     But I also have to admit, I'm not 100% sure how
>     | <note xml:base="http://www.example.edu/SydNotes.xml
>     <http://www.example.edu/SydNotes.xml>" target="#silly"/>
>     is supposed to be dereferenced. I have always thought it meant
>     the element at http://www.example.edu/SydNotes.xml#silly
>     <http://www.example.edu/SydNotes.xml#silly>. But RFC
>     3986 "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax" says
>     |  When a same-document reference is dereferenced for a retrieval
>     |  action, the target of that reference is defined to be within the
>     |  same entity (representation, document, or message) as the
>     |  reference; therefore, a dereference should not result in a new
>     |  retrieval action.
>     which confuses me.
>
>
>     All this leads me to prefer <prefixDef> over @xml:base.
>
>