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

I think John is quite right about the question of URIs using defined
prefixes. It depends whether the prefix results in an absolute URI or not.

I think fragment identifiers are a different question, but that a) they
should be understood to refer to the current document regardless of
@xml:base and b) since we're in charge of the TEI media type, we get to
decide, and should choose a).

To treat @rendition differently would in my opinion require that we change
its data type.

On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 3:42 PM, John P. McCaskey <[email protected]>
wrote:

> On 5/2/2017 2:52 PM, Syd Bauman 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...
>
> Doesn’t this (from here
> <http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-prefixDef.html>)
> answer that question?
>
> The abbreviated pointer may be dereferenced to produce either an absolute
> or a relative URI reference. In the latter case it is combined with the
> value of xml:base in force at the place where the pointing attribute
> occurs to form an absolute URI in the usual manner as prescribed by XML
> Base <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlbase/>.
>
> If you are willing to say some pointers (such as those with prefixDef
> entries) should not use xml:base, why not feel liberated to do so for
> pointers that are just fragment IDs or specifically named pointers such as
> @rendition?
>
> -- John
>