- From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 16:22:32 -0400
- To: xml-uri@w3.org
At 02:10 PM 6/13/00 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote: > (c) noone has disputed that the the two bats are distinct in > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-uri/2000May/0137.html > > and in particular, James Clark noted that his implementation > wasn't conforming in this regard[4] and folks from Microsoft, > the vendor of another popular XSLT processor, agreed[5] that no change > to the the XSTL/XPath specs is in order. > > If anybody doesn't think that the two bats should be treated > as distinct by XSLT implementations, please speak up. For me at least, the 'two bats' example wasn't exciting as far as whether they should be treated as distinct by XSLT. I can tolerate that behavior provided that it isn't forced into the parser-level specs (XML 1.0, Namespaces) per se. What was exciting/dismaying about that example was that it struck me as incredibly poor practice, seriously jeopardizing the integrity of that database were certain ordinary-seeming events to happen. To me, that's a good case for stating explicitly that "Using relative URI references is incredibly poor practice, and should not be encouraged." (And I basically said that in the latest revision of Common XML, which focuses on best practices for interoperability and reliability.) The distinction between best practices and specification changes remains important, however, which is why I've avoided the simple 'forbid relative URI references in the spec' arguments in favor of the 'literal' argument. Simon St.Laurent XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed. Building XML Applications Inside XML DTDs: Scientific and Technical Cookies / Sharing Bandwidth http://www.simonstl.com
Received on Tuesday, 13 June 2000 16:20:20 UTC