Re: Database example was: The Kesselman/Connoly proposal

> "[Definition:] The attribute's value, a URI reference, denotes the URI which
> is the namespace name identifying the namespace. "

uri + frag id, not URI.

But this would make the effective XML element names depend on the
location (or rather the base URI) of the document, something that has
never been claimed to be a desired or planned result of namespaces (or
anything else).


> The above is an example in which the use of a relative URI reference  for a
> namespace is preferable to absolute URI.

but what isn't clear is why you want to use namespaces for something
that is a relative URI linking to some associated data. 

You have a schema document and  pointing to that via a relative URI is
clearly a sensible idea. But given that schema spec provides a
mechanism for making such references to a schema, and the namespace
spec explictly says that pointing at schema is not a goal then I think
that there has to be a much stronger case made to support making an
incompatible change to namespace spec to support this case.
You have not made that case at all as far as I can see.

There are many scenarios where a schema document could be placed at
the URI used for a namespace name, and the "not a goal" is explictly
allowing that usage, but that does not justify changing the namespace
spec to support more examples of this.

David

Received on Friday, 30 June 2000 14:57:31 UTC