Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful?

Tim Berners-Lee wrote:

> A classic example is a document which defines its own namespace and uses it
> as it goes along. I understood the WebCGM schema does that, refering to the
> namespace it defines as "#".  Without relative URIs, this would be
> impossible to do without always writing the URI of the document in it every
> time you published a variation!

But this is not a decisive case, because a namespace name used in a single
document will give the same identity function whether it is taken as a literal
string or a relative URI reference.

The crucial case is two documents both of which have xmlns:foo="foo"
declarations.  Do they declare the same namespace (the "literal" interpretation),
different namespaces (the "absolutize" interpretation) or nothing at all
(the "forbid" interpretation)?
 
> ... or to just do it right.

Which also supposedly breaks Microsoft's customers' documents.
 
-- 

Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau,  || http://www.reutershealth.com
Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau,           || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.            -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)