Re: on relative URI references

> Application: Set attribute x:a to "red"
> Infoset: "No, i can't you already have that same attrubute"
> Application: "No, I have a y:a attribute and that is all. Please do as I
> asked"
> Infoset: "But x: and y: are the same namespace"
> Application:  "Oh no they aren't"
> Infoset: "Oh yes they are!"
> Application: "Are not!"
> Infoset: "Are too!"
> 
> So tell me how the infoset/dom and the application are layered.
> As Clark said, 'that doesn't work.
> 
That isn't how it works.
If an application is retrieving resources based on the namespace name
then it has to take the namepace name and make an absolute URI
A namespace name is, by definition, a URI reference, so in the case of
relative uris the same cautions apply to both. The uri reference
<a href="foo.html"/> will refer to different resources depending on
context The same happens for namespaces, but that isn't broken it's
just the way it works (currently). Your stylesheets were written on
the assumption that if the namespace name was the same, the referenced
resource would be the same, this of course is not true in the literal
interpretation but, as for href links, the solution (if you want to
ensure that you get the same resource) is to ensure you use the same
base URI. XSL makes that particularly easy to do but your stylesheets
did not do that.

> If you want to actually refer to the resource and see whether the
> linsk are to the same resource, you need to absolutize.
Yes XSLT allows you to ignore the base URI of the document and make
absolute with respect to any base URI, so I can't see why you can't
do that for namespaces. That is to retrieve the resource identified
by the namespace name of the current node do
document(namespace-uri(.),document('http://some/fixed/base/uri'))
would do as I suggested, always make the namespace name absolute
using some fixed base, and retrieve the resource, why is this
`against the uri spec' If it is such a simple application of xsl?


> maybe we should change that if it seen as being a personal
> endosement.

It most definitely is seen that way.  Actually I do acknowledge that
you have done a lot to try to open up w3c, but the text of the
recommendations and parts of the overall w3c constitution do
give the impression to outsiders that the whole thing is just your
personal fiefdom.

> Actually I would prefer doing it right, absolutizing them.
I do wish you would acknowledge that there are at least some problems
in having element names of a document being context sensitive and
becoming undefined if you read a document from standard in.
I would say that it was completely unworkable. I don't expect you to
go that far, but some hint that the absolute interpretation would
make most existing uses of XML documents impossible (for documents
using relative URI namespace names) would help the discussion along.



David

Received on Saturday, 3 June 2000 17:56:39 UTC