- From: Paul Kiel <paul@xmlhelpline.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 20:56:42 -0400
- To: "'Databinding WG'" <public-xsd-databinding@w3.org>
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 XmlHelpline.com "eXtensible Solutions" work: 919-846-0224 cell: 919-449-8801 paul@xmlhelpline.com 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 http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/databinding/issues/74 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