- From: Eve L. Maler <Eve.Maler@east.sun.com>
- Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 13:33:55 -0400
- To: xml-uri@w3.org
At 10:02 PM 5/29/00 -0400, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
>Almost. The problem I see is that if we follow (1), which at this point I
>more
>or less agree with, then there's a nasty inconsistency between the namespace
>spec and the definition of expanded names in the XPath spec. The working
>group
>you speak of would have to look at, and propose revisions to, all specs that
>are impacted by the string-literal interpretation of namespace names, not just
>the namespace spec itself. XPath is an instance but not the only
>one. XBase
>is another.
I don't believe that XML Base (http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlbase) is impacted by
this at all. It merely defines a new way to set bases (in addition to
existing ways); it can't definitively say who or what will use a base,
other than talking generically about "relative URIs."
In any case, XML Base isn't a REC, and there's still an opportunity to
change things. I know of specs-in-progress that may need updating on this
issue, but don't know of any other RECs besides XPath that are inconsistent
with the Namespaces REC as it stands.
Eve
--
Eve Maler +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center elm @ east.sun.com
Received on Wednesday, 31 May 2000 13:33:38 UTC