Hi, Susanne Oberhauser-Hirschoff <f...@suse.com> writes:
> Daniel, in 2003 you wrote this: > https://www.sourceware.org/ml/docbook/2003-03/msg00101.html > >> I tried to minimize the addition of xml:base when it could be avoided >> in practice (i.e. if the absence of the xml:base would not generate >> erroneous URI-References to URI computations). This was a deployment >> trade-off that I will fix when XInclude and xml:base will get better >> acceptance. >> >> Daniel I've provided a patch that makes it an option, and a patch that just does it as per the test suite. Either option is ok for me. I'd appreciate one of them to be considered upstream, so I don't have to maintain an extra patchset. The use case is valid debugging information 'which file does this fragment originate from' using lxml or any other tool based on libxml2. thx, S. -- Susanne Oberhauser SUSE LINUX Products GmbH +49-911-74053-574 Maxfeldstraße 5 Processes and Infrastructure 90409 Nürnberg GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) _______________________________________________ xml mailing list, project page http://xmlsoft.org/ xml@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/xml
