- From: David Carlisle <david@dcarlisle.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 09:06:59 +0100 (BST)
- To: cowan@locke.ccil.org
- CC: xml-uri@w3.org
> I would like there to be more consideration of the option I will call > "deprecate/fixed-base". This has two parts: > ... > "./foo" and "foo" namespaces will technically compare differently. there are two variants of that (I could live with either, but I wasn't sure which you meant) Variant 1) namespace processing takes the literal approach, and if some later processing requires to use a URI (eg to retrieve a resource) then the supplied base is taken. variant 2) the namespace name is always an absolute URI (eg sax2, xpath, etc should report it as such) a relative URI in the attribute value will be made absolute with respect to the stated base. Personally I'd prefer variant 1, but I could live with variant 2. Probably you'd need to say (for the record) whether relative paths with too many ../ were an error or whether any of the fallback options which I think are mentioned in the RFC are taken. (having a fixed base with a relatively deep path section would avoid this problem in practice) David me> This fixed base alternative might be much less disruptive than the me> forbid option. (I am still not sure about it, but I think that it me> could be seriously considered.)
Received on Thursday, 8 June 2000 04:02:22 UTC