Re: A proposed solution

Interesting! Something different, at least...

I've read it twice now, and I don't find anything to object
to. But I'm not sure I understand the impact.

In particular, I'm not sure if/how it impacts the
namespace-uri() function of XPath.

Would you please take a look at the test case in

	the case of two bats Dan Connolly (Tue, May 16 2000) 
	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-uri/2000May/0137.html

and tell me whether "the stylesheet should produce

        abs-com: http://example.com/2000/vocab#

for the first document and

        abs-net: http://example.net/2000/vocab#

for the second one"?

Also... is there any impact on the DOM2 spec?

David Turner wrote:
[...]
> The proposal meets the following requirements:
> 
>    * Namespace names are URIs
> 
>    * No two namespace names will appear to be equal
>      when more information would reveal them as unequal
> 
>    * Existing programs that employ string comparison will
>      continue to work in all cases where string comparison
>      produces results equal to comparison of absolutized URIs.
> 
> Based on the above discussion, the proposal is to clarify the wording
> of this paragraph in the XML NS spec [1] to instead of saying:
> 
> [[[Definition: URI references which identify namespaces are considered
> identical when they are exactly the same character-for-character. Note
> that URI references which are not identical in this sense may in fact be
> functionally equivalent. Examples include URI references which differ
> only in case, or which are in external entities which have different
> effective base URIs.]]]
> 
> instead to say:
> 
> [[[According to RFC 2396 a URI reference can be either a relative or an
> absolute URI. The scheme of an absolute URI identifies the URI space to
> which that URI belongs. A URI space is typically defined with a set of
> properties concerning uniqueness, normalization rules etc. as well as
> one or more default mechanisms for resolving URIs belonging to that URI
> space.
> 
> Relative URIs are always defined within a context. Typical examples are
> relative references within the current document (fragment identifiers)
> and relative references between documents at the same or closely related
> level of hierarchy in the URI space. Within the same context, relative
> links remain internally consistent and can act as unique identifiers
> (within that context) without actually being expanded relative to the
> context within which they are defined.
> 
> An application is responsible for knowing the context within which a
> relative link is defined. RFC 2396, section 5, provides several
> mechanisms for establishing the proper context within which relative
> URIs are defined. An application is also responsible for ensuring that
> relative identifiers are not treated as unique identifiers across
> contexts as ignorance of context can make distinct identifiers appear
> undifferentiated.]]]
[...]
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Thursday, 8 June 2000 17:38:38 UTC