- From: Michael Champion <Mike.Champion@softwareag-usa.com>
- Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 20:33:37 -0400
- To: <xml-uri@w3.org>
----- Original Message ----- From: "David Carlisle" <david@dcarlisle.demon.co.uk> To: <connolly@w3.org> Cc: <xml-uri@w3.org> Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2000 6:07 PM Subject: Re: Re Deprecate/Undefined (was Request for status dump and issues check) > > I am not sure being allowed but undefined really helps. > Why not just forbid, if that's what you want? Forbid is less preferable, IMHO, because: - It implies that some software out there (a parser? a DOM implementation) is enforcing the rule that relative URIs are forbidden. I *know* that the DOM WG doesn't want to go near this ... - It "breaks" the quasi-mythical documents out there that use namespaces with relative URIs. > > In any case if such a document doesn't have an infoset then it > shouldn't have an xpath data model either, as these are supposed to be > compatible (and presumably the timing of the two specs is the main > reason why xpath does not more explictly depend on infoset)
Received on Sunday, 25 June 2000 20:33:43 UTC