Re: @xml:base with @rendition (and maybe other pointers)
Conal Tuohy <[email protected]> Thu, 4 May 2017 01:51:28 +1000
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.tei.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAErBQuQzUGNDMAxLpHLOXo=nMrLM22Hu-cu+ci2EbcRmR8C=fA@mail.gmail.com> |
--001a113c0e865f6931054ea0a225 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 4 May 2017 at 01:22, Hugh Cayless <[email protected]> wrote: > A URI reference which is empty or begins with "#" is a same-document >> reference only if the xml:base in scope at that point in the document is >> the URI of the document itself. > > > No. It's a same-document reference even if the base URI is different from > the document URI, because the algorithm for resolving it will compare it to > the base URI, not the document URI. I will freely admit this is a bit > weird, but it is definitively weird. > On re-reading it I do think you're right; it does seems weird but I think it is defined that way in rfc3986. I take back everything I said about same-document references! You learn something new every day. So if a "fragment identifier" URI reference is always by definition a "same-document" reference, then resolution of such URI references should not (per rfc3986) trigger a retrieval. If you were to set xml:base on a root TEI element, then "fragment identifier" URI references would refer to elements in the same document. This would mean John McCaskey could safely use fragment identifiers to point to <rendition> elements, though the xml:base of the <rendition> elements would need to be set to the same value as the xml:base of the elements which referred to the <rendition> elements. -- Conal Tuohy http://conaltuohy.com/ @conal_tuohy +61-466-324297 --001a113c0e865f6931054ea0a225 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">= On 4 May 2017 at 01:22, Hugh Cayless <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailt= o:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a>></s= pan> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0p= x 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span clas= s=3D"gmail-"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px = 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style= =3D"font-size:12.8px">A URI reference which is empty or begins with "#= " is a same-document reference only if the xml:base in scope at that p= oint in the document is the URI of the document itself.=C2=A0</span></block= quote><div><br></div></span><div>No. It's a same-document reference eve= n if the base URI is different from the document URI, because the algorithm= for resolving it will compare it to the base URI, not the document URI. I = will freely admit this is a bit weird, but it is definitively weird.=C2=A0<= /div></blockquote></div><br>On re-reading it I do think you're right; i= t does seems weird but I think it is defined that way in rfc3986. I take ba= ck everything I said about same-document references! You learn something ne= w every day.</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_= extra">So if a "fragment identifier" URI reference is always by d= efinition a "same-document" reference, then resolution of such UR= I references should not (per rfc3986) trigger a retrieval. If you were to s= et xml:base on a root TEI element, then "fragment identifier" URI= references would refer to elements in the same document.=C2=A0</div><div c= lass=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">This would mean J= ohn McCaskey could safely use fragment identifiers to point to <renditio= n> elements, though the xml:base of the <rendition> elements would= need to be set to the same value as the xml:base of the elements which ref= erred to the <rendition> elements.=C2=A0</div><div class=3D"gmail_ext= ra"><br><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class=3D"gmail_signatu= re"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div>Conal Tuohy<br></div><= a href=3D"http://conaltuohy.com/" target=3D"_blank">http://conaltuohy.com/<= /a><br></div>@conal_tuohy<br>+61-466-324297<br></div></div></div></div> </div></div> --001a113c0e865f6931054ea0a225--