- From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 22:57:10 -0400
- To: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@mediaone.net>, <keshlam@us.ibm.com>, <xml-uri@w3.org>
-----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net> To: keshlam@us.ibm.com <keshlam@us.ibm.com>; xml-uri@w3.org <xml-uri@w3.org> Date: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 10:07 AM Subject: RE: rel:foo for those who can't do without 'relative' URIs >keshlam@us.ibm.com wrote: > >> >> >with this in place, is there *any* reason (besides the 3 legacy documents >> >:-) not to ban relative URI references as namespace names? >> >> I think that's always been the only serious objection to banning them. >> >> If the folks who felt they couldn't live without relative syntax (for fear >> of breaking legacy documents) are willing to take this solution, >> GO FOR IT. >> I've lost track of whether that's still a concern or not. >> Thatis my sense of the consesnus here. >Assuming that we accept the replacement of "foo" with "rel:foo", would it be >acceptable to define a 'migration' path for XML namespace in the deprecation >of relative URI references to define the behavior of a parser when a >relative URI reference is encountered to prepend "rel:" and proceed? No, I think you just have to accept that documents which use relative URI-references may under rather obscure circumstances give unexpected results in a well-fromedness test. The whole point of the problem is that you can't tell by looking at a document whether a relative URI-reference was written as a relative-URI reference (reading the first part of the NS spec) or as a string (reading the second part). >Thus a legacy XML document would be automatically transformed into a 'well >structured'/namespace conforming XML document. > >Jonathan Borden > >
Received on Wednesday, 7 June 2000 22:55:46 UTC