5542 2008-03-07 01:32:09 +0000 How are SML URIs absolutized 2008-11-06 00:45:54 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified SML Core+Interchange Format LC PC Windows NT RESOLVED FIXED externalComments, reviewerSatisfied P2 normal LC 5707 1 pratul.dublish virginia.smith ht virginia.smith public-sml oldest_to_newest 19339 0 pratul.dublish 2008-03-07 01:32:09 +0000 From http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2008Mar/0002.html 2) It's not stated whether SMLURIs are interpreted wrt a base URI if they are not absolute, i.e. how they are absolutized. 19465 1 kumarp 2008-03-13 19:51:24 +0000 resolution (3/13 conf call): For quick reference, the relevant text in the LC draft is shown below: From section "4.3.1 SML URI Reference Scheme", bullet 2.a: a. If the URI is a relative reference, then use an implementation-dependent base URI to resolve it to an URI. --- The SML WG believes that the current text in the LC draft resolves this issue fully. I'm changing its status accordingly. The change in status should cause email to be sent to the originator of this issue, to whom the following request is addressed. Please review the current LC text and let us know if you agree with this resolution of your issue, by adding a comment to the issue record. Or, if you do not agree with this resolution, please add a comment explaining why. If we do not hear from you in the next two weeks, we will assume you agree with the WG decision. 19884 2 ht 2008-04-18 14:00:29 +0000 I'm very unhappy with the fix -- surely the right thing to do is a) require the use of the base URI property and b) encourage, if not mandate, XML Base support. 20438 3 cmsmcq 2008-06-12 20:06:26 +0000 Judging by comment #2, I think it must have been an oversight that Henry as the originator did not reopen this issue to indicate dissatisfaction, as suggested in comment #1. To simplify tracking, I'm going to reopen it then, partly on Henry's behalf and partly on my own, since I have been persuaded that he is right and that the SML WG should adopt the plan given in comment #2. Unfortunately, I don't know what changes need to be made to the keywords to do the job properly, so the keywords may be out of synch with what they need to be. 21217 4 pratul.dublish 2008-07-17 18:31:58 +0000 As per the discussion in Edinburgh, the issue spans both IF and core. See John's proposal for a possible update to IF http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Jul/0019.html 21218 5 pratul.dublish 2008-07-17 19:19:40 +0000 Resolution in 7/17 call for IF spec adopt the proposal a) bullets 2-5 in John's email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Jul/0019.html 2. Support for smlif:baseURI is optional for smlif producers 3. Support for smlif:baseURI is optional for smlif consumers 4. Support for xml:base is required for smlif producers 5. Support for xml:base is optional for smlif consumers and b) a statement that "the intention of the authors of this spec is to deprecate this feature if a future version is introduced" 21219 6 pratul.dublish 2008-07-17 19:42:14 +0000 In addition to Comment #5, the WG agreed to the following additional changes In IF, we additionally describe how [base URI] is computed, from either smlif:baseURI or xml:base, whichever is supported by the consumer. In core (definition of SML URI scheme), require the use of [base URI] property and say that its computation is impl-defined, but need to be consistent with the 4 steps described by the relevant RFC. 21318 7 ht 2008-07-24 15:58:47 +0000 I can live with this compromise, provided a) You deprecate the use of smlif:baseURI forthwith for producers (after all, it's only being supported now for backwards compatibility, so it should not be a problem to strongly suggest that new docs should not use it); b) The algorithm for computing [base URI] makes clear that in the presence of _both_ annotations, xml:base 'wins' 21320 8 cmsmcq 2008-07-24 17:30:43 +0000 For what it's worth, I can also live with the compromise described in comment #5 and comment #6, which I understand as being essentially what was proposed by John Arwe in his mail of 9 July at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Jul/0019.html (If there's an important difference, then I've missed something and this statement of agreement is worthless.) Like Henry in comment #7 and John in the email mentioned, I think it's essential to specify a behavior for the case where both mechanisms are used, and I agree with both of them that "xml:base wins" is the right answer. Like Henry, I think it would be better to go ahead and discourage the use of smlif:baseURI beginning now, rather than promising that we'll begin to discourage it later. I'm not sure how much importance I assign to it, though (that is, I don't know whether I'll lie down in the road with Henry, or leave him to hold the road down by himself on this one). 21323 9 pratul.dublish 2008-07-24 19:13:22 +0000 Additional resolution on 7/24 call Consumer must support must at least one smlif:baseURI and xml:base. The smlif:baseURI feature is supported in this version of this specification for compatibility reasons. It is, however, deprecated and may be removed in a future version of this specification Address 7b with the following Compute from xml:base, if that fails, use smlif:baseURI (this applies to a consumer that supports both baseURI and xml:base) 21328 10 ht 2008-07-25 10:38:55 +0000 I am satisfied with the proposed resolution as amended 21576 11 virginia.smith 2008-08-15 20:24:09 +0000 Fixed SML spec only. Section 4.3.1, bullet 2 is rewritten (with Sandy's help). See that section for the new text. SML-IF still to be fixed so this is still editorial. 21615 12 virginia.smith 2008-08-21 17:48:22 +0000 Latest proposal for SML-IF spec: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-sml/2008Aug/0026.html 21675 13 kumarp 2008-08-28 18:24:43 +0000 <johnarwe_> we had a draft last night. ginny responded with a request to add: If an SML-IF consumer supports both mechanisms and the interchange model document it is consuming contains markup for both mechanisms, then the SML-IF consumer MUST use the xml:base mechanism to compute all [base URI] properties in the model document resolution on 8/28: the draft sent by John with the above sentence added is approved as the fix for 5542. 21677 14 kumarp 2008-08-28 18:34:07 +0000 additional resolution on 8/28: remove needsReview 21686 15 virginia.smith 2008-08-29 17:19:40 +0000 Fixed per comment #13, removed 'needsReview' per comment #14. See diff at: http://www.w3.org/2007/10/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fdev.w3.org%2Fcvsweb%2F~checkout~%2F2007%2Fxml%2Fsml%2Fbuild%2Fsml-if.html%3Frev%3D1.175%26content-type%3Dtext%2Fhtml%3B%2520charset%3Diso-8859-1&doc2=http%3A%2F%2Fdev.w3.org%2Fcvsweb%2F~checkout~%2F2007%2Fxml%2Fsml%2Fbuild%2Fsml-if.html%3Frev%3D1.176%26content-type%3Dtext%2Fhtml%3B%2520charset%3Diso-8859-1#Base_URI Changes are in sections 4.5, 5.3.2 - 5.3.4, 6.1. Also, the 2nd note in 5.3.2 is changed slightly from the proposal. The 2nd paragraph now reads: "Consistency checking of base URI results by SML-IF consumers is made optional to avoid requiring the potential overhead of performing twice as many calculations per relative reference as is minimally required to consume the model. An SML-IF consumer might choose to check base URI mechanism consistency based on input parameters, always, never, or based on any other criteria it chooses. <change>If both base URI mechanisms are used in a given interchange model document contained within a conforming SML-IF document, and a consumer understands both mechanisms, such a consumer must use the xml:base mechanism to compute the [base URI] property. This consumer may choose to ignore the smlif:baseURI information or it may choose to verify that consistent results are obtained from both mechanisms.</change> If both base URI mechanisms are used in a given interchange model document contained within a non-conforming SML-IF document, SML-IF provides no guarantees about the consistency of any [base URI] property computed using both mechanisms." 22365 16 johnarwe 2008-11-06 00:45:54 +0000 The XML Schema WG endorsed this bug in http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5513#c10 (see also http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5513#c11 ). I am contacting Schema's chair again today to solicit their formal feedback once again. I am also leaving the keywords alone, because (a) the original submitter ...Henry... did in fact say here he was satisfied (b) the SML wg appears to have met the spirit of the URI issue raised in the endorsement above that was split off into this bug.