- From: David Carlisle <david@dcarlisle.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 19:49:36 +0100 (BST)
- To: keshlam@us.ibm.com
- CC: xml-uri@w3.org
> "Absolutize" option? that one. Forbid is OK except it breaks some of my documents. Don't worry I'll survive, I wish i knew any way of knowing how many other documents would break. But taking relative URI and then deciding the namespace name is the absolute URI formed by the current base is absolutely unworkable. It creates an entirely new kind of XML document that is completely out of scope of any of the stated intentions of the namespace spec. Namespace names needed some kind of name allocation system and URI were chosen, which is OK (but conses beginners) but That doesn't justify creating documents whose element names change with the current context and become void if you stick the document in a pipe. So in particular changing namespaces to make the behaviour undefined, and leaving xpath as is, would also be unacceptable, that would just be "absolutize" (if that's a word) option by the back door. David
Received on Thursday, 8 June 2000 14:50:20 UTC