Re: stepping backward (one more step)

Graham Klyne wrote:
>
> If *a given document* contains the same relative URI in different places,
> can it refer to different connotations?  (Hmmm.. can one have an XML base
> applied to an element *within* an XML document?  If so, should that be
> regarded as a different document?)

Yes, one can have xml:base on inner elements.  No, that's not a different
document.  But xml:base is not needed, for the base changes when one
incorporates an external parsed entity.

> I'd say that the same relative URI in different documents cannot, of
> itself, be regarded as the same for any purpose:  I think some additional
> information is needed to conclude thus.

But what if documents "http://www.example.com/foo" and "http://www.example.com/bar"
both refer to the namespace "baz"?  By the absolutizing proposal, the namespace
meant is "http://www.example.com/baz" in each case.   By the literal proposal,
the namespaces are likewise the same.  So.

> (But I think the namespace spec
> can be read either way on this.  Section 2 indicates (to me) that only some
> namespace names can be regarded as delivering the desired properties of
> universality.

Lack of universality may or may not be desirable, but if it is permitted
at all (even if deprecated), there must be a standard method for handling it.

"That, it seems to me, is what this [mailing list] has to decide, and all that
it has to decide."
	-- Bilbo Baggins

-- 

Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau,  || http://www.reutershealth.com
Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau,           || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.            -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)

Received on Monday, 5 June 2000 10:59:07 UTC