We have that the value of xml:base is to be interpreted as
a LEIRI, but the definition of that (once I correct for
the broken link by looking at draft 3) seems not to allow
for such a think as a LEIRI Reference, which is the only
thing that the IRI spec allows to be relative.
So I am thinking that the example in section 3 of the
xmlbase spec is not supported by the normative prose,
although I don't want to say it's wrong, because
(1) it's obviously useful, and
(2) I claim no normal human can understand the maze of IRI specs.
But would it be worth some explicit prose about relative IRIs
in xml:base somewhere? Maybe with the example, and given that
(I fear) almost no-one will do anything other than read the
example and the (very important and useful) quoting rules,
it's not worth a change to the document at this stage. Or
maybe I'm missing something obvious?
No change is intended here from XML Base 1.0, i.e. non-absolute IRIs
are fine. The intention is to clarify the LEIRI section of the
forthcoming RFC so that IRI-references are explicitly included.
Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
Half-time member of W3C Team
10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: [hidden email] URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/ [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)