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: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 22:12:17 -0400
To: "John Cowan" <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
Cc: <xml-uri@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002301bfbfa5$53104ef0$1b19da18@ne.mediaone.net>
John Cowan wrote:
>
> 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.

	Yet xml:base provides a mechanism to override the rules of URI composition
as specified in RFC 2396. There is nothing to prevent the ammended XML
Namespace spec from also specifying its own 'override' for RFC 2396, if
indeed another mechanism for namespace URI composition solves this
apparently difficult problem.

	IMHO, I would not 'ban' the use of relative URIs in namespaces, rather
change the XML Namespace spec to define comparison not of the literal URI
string, but rather of the composed (IOW absolutized) URI string. This would
better (IMHO) reflect the intended usage of relative URIs in namespaces.

Jonathan Borden
Received on Tuesday, 16 May 2000 22:24:27 UTC

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