Re: [tinyTiM-discuss] tinyTiM and MIO

[Lars H. <he...@se...>]

Hi Stefan,

> So do we have to provide the parse(tmsystem,input) for xtm 1.0 ?

No, not necessarily; parsing XTM 1.0 not very different from XTM 2.0,
first, the document IRI is used. If you find a xml:base in the XTM 1.0
file, that xml:base is used. Note, that a XTM 1.0 file may contain any
number of xml:base attributes. You have to take care that you use the
*current* xml:base.

So, it would be pretty okay if the user wants to override the
(initial) document IRI, but it may not be used for all Topic Maps
constructs, because the xml:base overrides the document IRI.
Yes, that sucks, and this was one of the reasons why xml:base is not
used in XTM 2.0. :)

Example: If I have a topic map "mymap.xtm" and I place it into the
directory /home/lars/maps, the document IRI would be
<file:///home/lars/maps/mymap.xtm> but it would be okay, if I dictate
that the document IRI <http://www.semagia.com/maps/mymap.xtm> should
be used. But even if I dictate that, I cannot assume that every local
id is resolved against that IRI, because xml:base may override my
document IRI with i.e. <http://tinytim.sf.net/>, so some topics may
use <http://tinytim.sf.net/> as base IRI.

Complicated stuff. :) But XTM 2.0 is easier to read and to serialize,
maybe you want to start with XTM 2.0 and postpone XTM 1.0.

Best regards,
Lars
-- 
Semagia 
<http://www.semagia.com>