- From: David Carlisle <david@dcarlisle.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 22:10:11 +0100 (BST)
- To: masinter@attlabs.att.com
- CC: xml-uri@w3.org
> I was considering consistency with XML Base. I agree that these examples > are problematic, But they are the standard examples of namespace names using relative URI. I can't see an advantage in making these cases problematic. > but if we believe that the results are unworkable for > namespaces, are they not also unworkable for other URI uses? > That is, would you vote against having relative URIs in xml:base > sections apply to embedded URIs as they do in http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlbase > section 4? Well using relative uri for xml base, the primary use of which is to supply an absolute base is probably a little strange, but if they are to be allowed I would expect that the currently specified xml base behaviour is the most "expected" behaviour in that case. xml base's primary function is to supply a base URI against which relative URI are made absolute, so having xml base itself follow that rule seems more or less reasonable. However the primary role of a namespace name is rather different. I can't see how the proposed interpretation of repeated relative uri namespace declarations would ever be "expected" or useful. David
Received on Sunday, 18 June 2000 17:05:02 UTC