[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
[Hmm.. I sent 3 or 4 msgs to xml-dev on Tuesday and they went into the
bit bucket, perhaps because xml-dev was on the Cc: not the To: line?]
Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>I think it's time to take a long hard look at XML Base and question
>whether this spec:
>a) is useful
>b) is necessary
>c) belongs in the "XML Core"
>On (a), I think XML Base is useful for people too lazy to type complete
> URIs.
I always thought the strongest argument for xml:base was that the HTML
base element was so useful; you could move a whole tree of web pages,
with relative hyperlinks, around in a nice clean way, and use "base" to
make sure that relative links were fetched from where you wanted them
fetched from, not based on on relative processing of whatever random URL
led someone to the first page.
So far I'm not seeing an overwhelming demand for xml:base. On the other
hand it's simple, easy to understand, architecturally clean, and easy to
implement. The jury may stil be out. -Tim
|
