Daniel Veillard wrote: > [on XML parsing] > 1/ it should be an "atomic" processing, requiring no further input > 2/ it should not depend on the way those bits were made available > 3/ it should be stable in time/space, no variation I shoud like to point out (without disagreeing) that XML already allows relative URIs in system identifiers, with the consequence that an XML processor must already track the base URI of each XML entity (external file) it reads. The use of relative URIs in namespaces is consistent with this. I still believe that it should not be forbidden to dereference a namespace URI, and, furthermore, that we should define what lives there to be (at least) a publicly registered identifier representing the semantics required -- even if that identifier is the same as the URI used in the first place. In that way, relative URIs can be made to work easily in a world in which meaning can only be assigned to absolute URIs, without requiring absolutization, and without having to break existing documents or specifications. -- Liam Quin - Barefoot in Toronto - liam@holoweb.net - http://www.holoweb.net/ Ankh on irc.sorcery.net http://valinor.sorcery.net/ Co-author, The XML Specification Guide, Wiley, 1999 Forthcoming: The Open Source XML Database ToolkitReceived on Tuesday, 20 June 2000 07:25:30 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Tuesday, 12 April 2005 12:17:25 GMT