


From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:01:53 -0500
Message-ID: <028101c1cf67$c54db5b0$0a2e249b@nemc.org>
To: "Chris Lilley" <chris@w3.org>, "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "Paul Grosso" <pgrosso@arbortext.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>
Chris Lilley wrote:

> BM> That looks like an eminently reasonable requirement for HTML.
> That seems like marginalization to me - the HTML WG is clearly working
> to make XHTML be generic XML, and the same methods should apply to
> XHTML, SVG, MathML, SMIL, fooML and barML when there is xml:base and a
> link with a URI that is just a fragment identifier.
> The same interpretation should apply in all cases that use xml:base
> and that interpretation should be in the xml:base spec, not in any
> spec that is a client of xml:base.

Except that xml:base is not entirely relevent here, except as a way to
specify a current base URI, which might be different than the base URI of
the current document.

This argument is more concerned with: What URI reference is the subject of
the RDF statement:

<daml:Class rdf:ID="foo"/>

RDF has been around as a Recommendation alot longer than XML Base, so who is
at fault? Did XML Base ensure that it covered the very real needs of RDF?
Would you be happier if RDF defines: rdf:base="URI" that is just like
xml:base but is defined to behave the way RDF intends? Would that better
serve the needs of the Web?

Perhaps the authors of RFC 2396, particularly those which are on the TAG,
can offer us some guidance as to whether RDF has it right or wrong.

Short of that, why is _your reading_ better than _my reading_ particularly
when we both have different applications e.g. HTML vs. RDF, in mind.
Moreover I don't see (at all) why the RDF handling of rdf:ID="foo" at all
harms HTML or any other application that does not concern itself with RDF.

Received on Tuesday, 19 March 2002 12:04:45 GMT
