[whatwg] <base> versus xml:base
webmaster at keryx.se
Tue Mar 6 11:16:08 PST 2007
Geoffrey Sneddon wrote:
> xml:lang and xml:base are the actual attribute names – the XML namespace
> exists so they work within namespace aware parsers (as XML-Names is a
> separate spec that extends XML) – therefore, it must be explicitly
> allowed within the DTD (like xml:lang is).
When I read http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlbase/ it seems to me that if a
parser understands XML it should be OK to use xml:base. The very last
line of that document:
"XHTML [XHTML] uses URI references beyond those expressible in XLink.
These URI references might be resolved by an application relative to the
base URI defined by XML Base. The XHTML specification might want to
describe their level of support for XML Base."
Apart from faulty grammar in the last sentence I interpret this as "It
is a good idea to explicitly state how this attribute is supported." It
*might* want to describe this. I think that it would be wise to answer
questions such as if both <base> and xml:base are present, which one
should "win"? (I've only tested in FFox and the attribute wins over the
element.) What authority do you rely on when you say that the attribute
must be explicitly allowed?
More information about the whatwg