W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-uri@w3.org > May 2000

Re: Rules for absolutizing: was Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful?

From: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 14:49:38 -0400
Message-ID: <39219842.834B0B63@reutershealth.com>
To: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
CC: xml-uri@w3.org
Jonathan Borden wrote:

>     I suppose the real question is what rules ought be applied to transform
> a relative uri into an absolute uri:

RFC 2396 defines them once and for all, except that there is an extension
mechanism for things like the HTML BASE element or the proposed xml:base.
Every Web resource has a base URI, which by default is the URI of the
document itself.
> a) ought the parent element's namespace be used as the base uri?

No, unless the base URI has been changed to the parent element's namespace
using one of the escape mechanisms.

> b) or rather does one consider the document *location* uri the base uri?

Yes, usually.

> > So you write your application in terms of namespace names which are
> absolute
> > URIs, possibly with fragment-ids as well, and you depend on absolutizing
> > to match with namespace declarations that are relative URI references.
> >
> We need to properly define the process of absolutizing.

See http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt, which spells it out in detail.


Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau,  || http://www.reutershealth.com
Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau,           || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.            -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)
Received on Tuesday, 16 May 2000 14:49:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:42 UTC