- From: Clark C. Evans <cce@clarkevans.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 12:15:56 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- cc: xml-uri@w3.org
On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Al Gilman wrote: > >Finally, as the past month's debate has proven, using relative names does > >not communicate well with humans attempting to read your document; there > >are too darned many possible ways of interpreting this. > > Hardly. _Instances_ of relative references relate well to real people; The > _class_ of relative references is harder to relate to in the abstract (as > we have done here) because there is the _added dimension_ of the context > within which the relative reference is posed. But short, relative > references are far more mnemonic than unnecessarily global identifiers. > Hands down. IMHO, there is a big difference between relative URIs for entity resources (your typical HTML example) and for namespaces. For entity resources, the browser or a verification tool can check to see if the entity exists; if not, then the relative URI can easily be flagged as an error (a broken link). With namespaces is is much harder, since one does not de-reference them, it is harder to be sure that you got the right one. I've had XSLT processors silently ignore stylesheets and documents pass through XSLT processors in weird ways when I type in the URI slightly incorrectly. What a headache. At least for the "literal" interpretation I can glance at the file and determine exactly what is being compared. With an "absolutization" of relative URI references, this "broken link" debugging is going to be far harder. The absolutization requirement effectively adds a macro processor to the begin of every process... so what you see is not really what is actually being submitted. Yuck. I can just imagine being called in for a 3AM production failure when a relative link fails. I'm just saying we should be careful about our assumption of useability of "relative URI references" for namespaces just because they have been successfully deployed for web sites where "http:" stands for "HyperText Transfer Protocol" instead of "please ignore me". When I have a guest, and ask them to sit down ... and then remember just as they are sitting down that the chair in question is broken, I apologise profusely and move them to another chair before they hurt themselves. Making mistakes is acceptable... as long as they are identified quickly and reported so that consumers can adapt. ;) Clark
Received on Friday, 9 June 2000 12:10:10 UTC