W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-names-issues@w3.org > July to September 1998

Re: relative URIs for namespaces

From: David Brownell <db@Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 19:42:20 -0700
Message-ID: <35E3760C.5AE81727@eng.sun.com>
To: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>
CC: xml-names-issues@w3.org
I'm quite happy disallowing relative URLs.

Such errors should probably be in that "implementations
don't need to test for this" category, again avoiding the
need to interpret the URI.

- Dave


James Clark wrote:
> 
> David Brownell wrote:
> >
> > What would the semantics of a relative URI in an "xmlns...='...'"
> > declaration be?  That is, what's the base URI with respect to
> > which such a URI must be interpreted -- the document in which
> > it's found?  Or are relative URIs not allowed?
> 
> I would prefer not to allow relative URIs here.  I can't think why
> anyone would want to have a namespace URI relative to a document. It's a
> bit of a pain to implement (at least for some kinds of implementation).
> It requires the implementation to interpret the namespace URI rather
> than just treaingt it as an opaque string.  It also removes the
> ambiguity with xmlns="" caused by the empty string being a legal
> relative URI.  Also I suspect many of the URIs used with namespaces in
> the long term will be non-hierarchical and thus unuseable with relative
> URIs.  If we were going to allow relative URIs, I think we should
> provide a way to specify what the base is.
> 
> James
Received on Tuesday, 25 August 1998 22:44:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:43:30 UTC