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

Lou Burnard <[email protected]> Sat, 6 May 2017 18:08:14 +0100
Newsgroups gmane.text.tei.general
Message-ID <[email protected]>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------0A6D670348DE379F6AD4F8EB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



On 06/05/17 17:46, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen wrote:
> Accurate technical summaries of complicated issues are indeed useful,=20
> and I think you and others are right to hope for one.
> But please don=E2=80=99t adopt the summary below.  Lou=E2=80=99s mail d=
oes not summarize accurately the issues raised in the discussion, its des=
cription of how fragment-only references are interpreted is partly mislea=
ding and partly just wrong, and the classification of URIs proposed is =E2=
=80=A6 eccentric (while also lacking the charm of Borges=E2=80=99s imagin=
ary Chinese encyclopedia).

My apologies if my over hasty attempt to express my own understanding of=20
the issue has led to needless confusion. I wasn't trying to summarize=20
the whole of a detailed
technical discussion, just what I thought were its take home messages.=20
But I clearly haven't got them right yet.

Michael said "Don=E2=80=99t try to point outside your TEI document by usi=
ng=20
xml:base plus a #destination in the pointer attribute. It does not have=20
the desired meaning. Point outside your TEI document either using an=20
absolute URI or an xml:base attribute plus the final part of the path=20
(the =E2=80=98file name=E2=80=99 part) and the fragment identifier. So NO=
T=20
<ptrxml:base=3D=E2=80=9Clib/foo.xml=E2=80=9Dtarget=3D=E2=80=9C#bar=E2=80=9D=
/> but=20
<ptrxml:base=3D=E2=80=9Clib/=E2=80=9Dtarget=3D=E2=80=9Cfoo.xml#bar=E2=80=9D=
/>."

I *thought* I was re-expressing that in simpler terms, but (it happens)=20
over simplification can mislead.

I'll go back to banging the rocks together now, but I really would like=20
to know whether that example in P5 needs to be corrected, and if it=20
does, what form the correction should take.



--------------0A6D670348DE379F6AD4F8EB
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html>
  <head>
    <meta content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dutf-8" http-equiv=3D"Content-Ty=
pe">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor=3D"#CCCCCC" text=3D"#000000">
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <br>
    <div class=3D"moz-cite-prefix">On 06/05/17 17:46, C. M.
      Sperberg-McQueen wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
      cite=3D"mid:[email protected]"
      type=3D"cite">Accurate technical summaries of complicated issues ar=
e
      indeed useful, and I think you and others are right to hope for
      one.
      <pre wrap=3D"">
But please don=E2=80=99t adopt the summary below.  Lou=E2=80=99s mail doe=
s not summarize accurately the issues raised in the discussion, its descr=
iption of how fragment-only references are interpreted is partly misleadi=
ng and partly just wrong, and the classification of URIs proposed is =E2=80=
=A6 eccentric (while also lacking the charm of Borges=E2=80=99s imaginary=
 Chinese encyclopedia).=20
</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    My apologies if my over hasty attempt to express my own
    understanding of the issue has led to needless confusion. I wasn't
    trying to summarize the whole of a detailed<br>
    technical discussion, just what I thought were its take home
    messages. But I clearly haven't got them right yet.<br>
    <br>
    Michael said "Don=E2=80=99t try to point outside your TEI document by=
 using
    xml:base plus a #destination in the pointer attribute. It does not
    have the desired meaning. Point outside your TEI document either
    using an absolute URI or an xml:base attribute plus the final part
    of the path (the =E2=80=98file name=E2=80=99 part) and the fragment i=
dentifier. So
    NOT &lt;ptrxml:base=3D=E2=80=9Clib/foo.xml=E2=80=9Dtarget=3D=E2=80=9C=
#bar=E2=80=9D/&gt; but
    &lt;ptrxml:base=3D=E2=80=9Clib/=E2=80=9Dtarget=3D=E2=80=9Cfoo.xml#bar=
=E2=80=9D/&gt;."<br>
    <br>
    I *thought* I was re-expressing that in simpler terms, but (it
    happens) over simplification can mislead.<br>
    <br>
    I'll go back to banging the rocks together now, but I really would
    like to know whether that example in P5 needs to be corrected, and
    if it does, what form the correction should take.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>

--------------0A6D670348DE379F6AD4F8EB--