Re: Relative URIs

John Boyer wrote:
> 
> The recent brouhaha over whether relative URIs should be absolutized brought
> to my attention the fact that
> 
> 1) The namespace recommendation says that the namespace URIs should be
> treated as strings
> 2) The XPath recommendation does not quite do this because it absolutizes
> relative URIs.
> 
> This raises two questions:
> 
> 1) How does an XPath implementation know the base URI to do this conversion?

>From the infoset.  If the infoset is changed to provide the relative
namespace URI only, then it can get it from the base URI property in the
infoset.  RFC 2396 defines how to compute the base URI.

> 2) Given that XPath came out after Namespaces, are we to assume that Xpath
> is in error?

Not until the current brouhaha has reached a conclusion.

James