Re: A proposed solution

Paul,

Let me clarify:

1) for most uses, in particular resource retrieval, relative URI refs need
to be absolutized.

2) when absolutizing, XBase is useful and correctly specified.

3) IFF relative URI refs are absolutized in creating *namespace names*,
certain problems are created. These problems depend on the presence of
particular base URIs w.r.t the particular document. Hence:

4) IFF absolutizing is specified for the amended namespace rec, whether or
not XBase is implemented for a particular parser will affect whether
*particular* documents have defined infosets.

In regard to the role of XBase:

> Your issue is whether namespace names (1) should be restricted
> to non-relative ones (forbid) or (2) treated as non-URI-ish
> strings (literal) or (3) absolutized.

> If you don't absolutize,
> a base URI is irrelevant, and if you do absolutize, you use
> the base URI.  XML Base contributes to the calculation of
> the base URI, not to the decision about whether you absolutize
> namespace names or not.
>

Correct, except that even if absolutization is not performed as a document
is parsed, the infoset still contains the specified base URI and hence
retrievable by upper layer software which wishes to absolutize e.g. XPath's
namespace-uri().

The namespace problem is with absolutization not XBase. I never intended to
trash XBase, rather point out problems with a proposed solution.

Jonathan Borden

Received on Thursday, 8 June 2000 20:15:58 UTC