Re: Personal view

Hmm this is "fixed base" with the addition of

> a) a namespace declaration establishes the base for any subsequent
>    namespace declaration attributes in any embedded tags.

> This is different than any current recommendations, but it gives
> the desired effect in most cases and for most existing documents.

Is there any use case for this interpretation of relative names?
It would make it highly dangerous to "repeat" a namespace declaration,
either explicitly or by making  such declarations be default via an
attribute default, as while the XML 1.0 attribute is copied, the
namespace name will change at various points in the document.

Also, the behaviour of

<a xmlns="relative">
  <a xmlns="relative">

would be completely different to the behaviour of

<a xmlns="relative/">
  <a xmlns="relative/">

and thus it's just something else for a processor to check with no
benefit (or at most cosmetic benefit) to authors of documents, who
could more usefully have put the absolute URI explictly in the document
which would have made it a lot clearer that in the first case both
elements were in 'xmlns-base:/relative' but in the second case
the two elements were in 'xmlns-base:/relative/' and
'xmlns-base:/relative/relative/' respectively.


I am fairly sure that this effect isn't "desired" by me, and would
make namespace processing substantially harder to document.

On the other hand I do accept that the other half of your proposal

>    the 'base' for
>    a namespace declaration is the pseudo-scheme 'xmlns-base:/'.
>    In no case is the base used for namespace absolutization to be
>    taken from the containing document.

is a viable alternative to the  "literal" and "forbid" options (which
are the other two viable proposals on the table). This is the
"fixed base" option with another different specific proposal
for the base.

David

Received on Sunday, 18 June 2000 07:53:52 UTC