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

At 17:53 16/05/00 -0400, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
> >But to be rude, are there any real cases where different namespace
> >resolution based on file location is actually desirable?
>Another example is a suite of schemata which define interrelated languages,
>so that for example a Shape-based Vector Graphics and a Spline Vector
>Graphics and Spatial vector Graphics schemata are published as a trio and
>use each other's namespaces. he editor just finds that editing the three
>documents is easier with relative URIs as it is always important in the
>various drafts and versions and branches of discussion that the three
>schemata refer to each other, and it is really burdensome and error-prone to
>have to change the namespace declarations whenever a different variety of
>the specs is produced.

Now I'm confused (not for the first time...).  The namespace URI is not 
necessarily the location from which the schema is actually retrieved.  So 
the process of absolutising the namespace URIs relative to the 
schemaLocation URI would end up breaking them. Isn't this actually an 
example of why relative namespace URIs are a bad idea?

Received on Wednesday, 17 May 2000 08:37:39 UTC