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

Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful?

From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 03:14:16 -0400
Message-ID: <000501bfbfd4$b68d0390$dde7adc1@ridge.w3.org>
To: <keshlam@us.ibm.com>, <xml-uri@w3.org>
Cc: <xml-uri@w3.org>

-----Original Message-----
From: keshlam@us.ibm.com <keshlam@us.ibm.com>
To: xml-uri@w3.org <xml-uri@w3.org>
Cc: xml-uri@w3.org <xml-uri@w3.org>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 4:53 PM
Subject: Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful?

>>> This is why many of us voted for the Literal String solution. It gives
>us a
>>> version that permits the reliable recognizability promised by
>>> _and_ permits relative syntax for those who want that option. The
>>> alternatives all seem to break one community or the other.
>>However, it creates an exception to the usual rules of URI-reference
>Only if you insist that the Namespace Name is in fact a URI-reference. If
>we accept that it is a string which is _formatted_ as a URI reference -- in
>other words, that it only becomes a reference when you actively attempt to
>use it as one by combining it with a base address -- there really shouldn't
>be a problem.

On the contrary, there is a serious one: you get things which were
(identical, not identical)
when compared as strings turning out to generate (not identical, identical)
objects when
considered as URIs.  This seems to me to be untenable.

And remember there are many operations you can do on URIs which do not
getting on the net. For example, you can look up what you know about them
other sources. You can check your local broker for a Java implementation.
And so on.

The XML specs have to go one way or the other: commitment to or separation
from URIs.
Received on Wednesday, 17 May 2000 03:49:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:13:58 UTC