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

"Henry S. Thompson" wrote:
> 
> James Clark <jjc@jclark.com> writes:
> 
> > Dan Connolly wrote:
> >
> > > So regarding a doc at http://example.com/dir1/dir2/
> > >         <aDoc xmlns="../foo"/>
> > >
> > > Q: does it conform to XML 1.0?
> > > A: of course; noone has suggested otherwise.
> > >         It's well-formed.
> > >
> > > Q: does it conform to the namespaces spec?
> > > A: indeed, it does.
> > >         But if you look at the errata page, you'll
> > >         notice a big warning that you're asking
> > >         for trouble by using relative URI references
> > >         in namespace declarations.
> >
> > A namespace processor has to compare namespace names for identity to
> > enforce the rule on attribute uniqueness.  Does a namespace processor
> > compare names literally (without regard for base) on this proposal?
> >
> > > Q: OK, then, what's the namespace name of the root element?
> > > A: ../foo , per the namespaces spec as written.
> > >
> > >         But be careful about calling it anything else,
> > >         like "namespace URI" -- that terminology suggests
> > >         that you're talking about the absolute form
> > >         of ../foo w.r.t. the relevant base.
> 
> So I think James has raised a crucial question for the success of
> Dan's proposal:  did Dan avoid mentioning comparison because he
> thought it was obvious from the answer to Q3, immediately above, or
> because he was hoping it would go away?
> 
> Here's my Q3a and Q3b:
> 
> Q3a: Does the following conform to the namespaces spec?
>      <aDoc xmlns:a="../foo" xmlns:b="../foo" a:a='1' b:a='a'/>
> A3a: No, because there are two attributes with the same local name
>      ('a') and namespace name ('../foo', see Q3)
> 
> Q3b: Does the following conform to the namespaces spec?
>      <aDoc xmlns:a="../f" xmlns:b="http://www.example.com/f" a:a='1' b:a='a'/>
> A3b: Yes*, because although there are two attributes with the same local name
>      ('a') their namespace names are different (see Q3).
>      * _Regardless_ of the location in URI space of the document in question.
> 
> Is that consistent with your intentions, Dan?

Yes... that is: that's what the namespace REC says today, and I think
I can live with it.

James has asked some other important questions, and I'm still mulling
those over, by the way.

I'm not terribly fond of this business of identifying proposals
by people's names. My personal preference is to treat URI references
in namespace declarations as such, and compute the resulting
absolute URI in the traditional manner and call that the namespace
name. But I don't see any cost-effective way to reach that state
of affairs. But any state of affairs where the specs built
on top of the namespace spec identify namespaces with absolute
URIs (with option fragment identifiers) is OK with me.



-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Tuesday, 27 June 2000 09:15:55 UTC