- From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
- Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 22:06:22 -0400
- To: <michaelm@netsol.com>, "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Cc: <xml-uri@w3.org>
Michael Mealling wrote: > > On Mon, May 29, 2000 at 09:27:26PM -0400, Simon St.Laurent wrote: > > At 08:57 PM 5/29/00 -0400, Clark C. Evans wrote: > > <snip> > > Does this sound like a plausible solution to our current quandary? > > Sounds fine to me. It just means that I'll wait for 2.0 before I > implement anything using XML Namespaces. I don't mean that to be > facetious. > Its just that, since I assumed (which was my fault) that namespace names > were URIs in all respects, I now consider this version to be broken for > my purposes... > > That doesn't mean its broken for yours.... > Since no one is forcing you to use relative URI references as namespace names and you can presumably refuse to use anyone else's software, or documents, which use relative URIs, what is so broken? Perhaps a best current practices recommendation can be released and we can postpone serious decisions until XML 1.1 (or whatever the number) because, for example, absolutizing relative URIs will change the nature of well formedness depending on whether XBase is or isn't implemented etc. Another question is whether to hold XBase until a decision is made regarding Namespace usage, the real trickiness starts when/if XBase is released (IMHO). Jonathan Borden
Received on Monday, 29 May 2000 22:19:04 UTC