- From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 16:45:28 -0700
- To: "'Tim Berners-Lee'" <timbl@w3.org>
- Cc: xml-uri@w3.org
> -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Berners-Lee [mailto:timbl@w3.org] > Re-issue namespace spec saying:- > > * Confirm that the namespace attribute is a URI-reference > * Point out that that this implies that litteral comparison and URI > comparison are > equivalent so long a relative URIs are not used; > * using relative URI references is a bad idea, because > existing software > does different things with them. I would be very pleased if you could explain how this could be made to work in light of the objections I raised in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-uri/2000May/0511.html and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-uri/2000May/0577.html, and to which John Cowen responded with what I believe is the highest praise: "This is IMHO a *very* strong argument." in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-uri/2000May/0578.html (hopefully that will pique enough interest to follow the links :-). In that posting I argue that your statement "using relative URI references is a bad idea, because existing software does different things with them" in practice is equivalent to "using relative URI references may cause your document to cease to be namespace-legal XML in certain contexts." This quacks like "forbid" in that it breaks existing documents. I'd appreciate a response from you on this, it probably missed your notice in the flood. Perhaps a new thread name will help :-). - Jonathan Marsh Microsoft
Received on Thursday, 1 June 2000 19:46:15 UTC