- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 10:23:35 -0700
- To: "Clark C. Evans" <cce@clarkevans.com>
- Cc: "David Carlisle" <david@dcarlisle.demon.co.uk>, <dturner@microsoft.com>, <XML-uri@w3.org>, <andrewl@microsoft.com>
> On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote: > > Not at all - it merely states that you can't use relative URIs without > > taking the context within which they are defined into account. Note that > > this doesn't mean that you necessarily have to explicitly absolutize. > > The proposed solution is then to treat the namespace names > literally; but put a big sign in the namespace rec? Nope, the proposal is much simpler: it merely clarifies that a namespace identifier is a URI. Some URIs are relative which means that they are defined within a context. In order for you to deal with relative URIs you have to be aware of the context (for example "the current document"). The warning is that you can't take the relative URI out of context and still expect it to be a unique identifier outside the context. As long as you know the context, you can do whatever you want with the URI - typical examples include comparing, retrieving, printing on busses etc. Also, within the context, relative URIs in fact act as unique identifers. > I'd be happy if the "fixup" also put in a (non-normative) > statement about only using "locator" URIs such as "http" > or "file" when there is an entity body to be retrieved > and the entity body to be retrieved is well described by > the owner of the namespace. Then recommend (non-normative) > a reverse-DNS mechanism for namespaces which do not have > a related entity body to retrieve: That would not be appropriate because URIs don't force behavior. Whether you want to try and do something with it is up to you. Henrik Frystyk Nielsen, mailto:frystyk@microsoft.com
Received on Friday, 9 June 2000 13:24:11 UTC