- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 17:28:05 -0500
- To: <xml-uri@w3.org>
At 09:05 AM 2000-06-05 -0700, Larry Masinter wrote: > >Are there any practical considerations left besides deciding whether >we should 'disallow', 'deprecate' or 'define' the use of relative >URIs in namespace names? Once you strip away all of the philosophical? > You left out 'undefine' which is more to the point. If we just make it clear that "Relative URIs are prima_facie suspect as far as being globally defined are concerned. Where a relative URI-reference appears in the ns-attr, you may need to know more than what is provided in this Recommendation to process it correctly." ...we will have provided the technical substantiation for a warning and correctly described the extent of the misfit between the de_jure status quo and the de_facto status quo. This sounds like something minor enough it could be published as an erratum and any revision of the base document be left to follow a schedule geared to the natural workings of the technology lifecycle. That's as far as the Namespaces Rec. is concerned. We still need to have an answer for InfoSet and XPath. Then we could be able to get on to larger issues (i.e. of more practical importance) such as what pattern of practice will work well for importing more than just the names from a language module into the current document in a sufficiently informative, open and interoperable way. >Larry >-- >http://larry.masinter.net >
Received on Monday, 5 June 2000 17:13:36 UTC