On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 11:30:17AM +0200, Susanne Oberhauser-Hirschoff wrote: > Hi, > > Susanne Oberhauser-Hirschoff <f...@suse.com> writes:
Hi Susanne, > > 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. I completely missed your reply then and the patch, I will look at it before pushing 2.9.2, thanks ! Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | Open Source and Standards, Red Hat veill...@redhat.com | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/ _______________________________________________ xml mailing list, project page http://xmlsoft.org/ xml@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/xml
