W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-uri@w3.org > June 2000

Re: Re Deprecate/Undefined (was Request for status dump and issues check)

From: David Carlisle <david@dcarlisle.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 19:49:36 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <m1307N2-000OdDC@dcarlisle.demon.co.uk>
To: keshlam@us.ibm.com
CC: xml-uri@w3.org

> "Absolutize" option? 

that one.

Forbid is OK except it breaks some of my documents. Don't
worry I'll survive, I wish i knew any way of knowing how many other
documents would break.

But taking relative URI and then deciding the namespace name is
the absolute URI formed by the current base is absolutely
unworkable. It creates an entirely new kind of XML document
that is completely out of scope of any of the stated intentions of the
namespace spec. Namespace names needed some kind of name allocation
system and URI were chosen, which is OK (but conses beginners) but
That doesn't justify creating documents whose element names change
with the current context and become void if you stick the document in
a pipe.

So in particular changing namespaces to make the behaviour undefined,
and leaving xpath as is, would also be unacceptable, that would
just be "absolutize" (if that's a word) option by the back door.

Received on Thursday, 8 June 2000 14:50:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:43 UTC