W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xsd-databinding@w3.org > October 2006

RE: ISSUE-74: Relative URIs in targetNamespace schemaLocation

From: Paul Kiel <paul@xmlhelpline.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 20:56:42 -0400
To: "'Databinding WG'" <public-xsd-databinding@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000001c6f319$71addef0$6601a8c0@punk>

Greetings folks,

Am doing what I can to keep up with what you are working on.  I don't know
the details of this thread, but I will say that FWIW, I don't think relative
URIs should be classified "advanced".  In my view of many libraries of
schemas, some open standards and some not, a strong majority of them utilise
relative paths in the schemaLocation.  This is often because they want their
libraries to be self contained and available offline (like trying to edit a
library of schemas on a plane, which I am oft to do...).  The relative paths
allow them to connect entire libraries and ship them around to colleagues
and business partners who may or may not be online.  

My 0.02.

Paul Kiel

W. Paul Kiel
"eXtensible Solutions"
work: 919-846-0224
cell: 919-449-8801
Specializing in Xml, Xslt, web services, and data integration.
-----Original Message-----
From: public-xsd-databinding-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-xsd-databinding-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Databinding
Issue Tracker
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 4:51 PM
To: public-xsd-databinding@w3.org
Subject: ISSUE-74: Relative URIs in targetNamespace schemaLocation

ISSUE-74: Relative URIs in targetNamespace schemaLocation


Raised by: Paul Downey
On product: Basic

The interaction between relative URIs in schema/@targetNamespace and
schema/[import|include]/@schemaLocation with @xml:base 
would appear to be likely to be problematic in some toolkits.

Proposal: Absolute URIs are Basic, Relative URIs advanced. 
Received on Thursday, 19 October 2006 01:02:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:58:13 UTC