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

At 05:53 PM 5/16/00 -0400, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
>One example, given by Chris Lilley I think, from WebCGM experience, is that
>of a schema which defines a language and sees it in the same document in a
>deliberately (not accidentally) self-referential way.  [The C program module
>parallel would be a program file which defines a number of functions, and
>makes calls  to those functions within the same file which defines them.]
>For example, the schema for schemas could bootstrap itself into existence
>referring to itself as "#".

If I understand correctly, you're suggesting that the namespace URI is 
self-referencing (assuming you actually plan to dereference something) by 
virtue of being empty.  However, note that such a value is an empty URI 
reference [1], not a relative URI reference; normal base resolution does 
not apply because the referent is always the current document.

We've been focusing on only one case (relative URIs) to the exclusion of 
another important one (empty URIs), and there may be tricky corners to the 
latter because the Namespaces spec defines special features for empty 
strings as namespace declaration values.  (I think the presence of the bare 
"#" in your example above negates its use as an "unsetting" declaration...)


[1], Section 4.2
Eve Maler                                    +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center    elm @

Received on Wednesday, 17 May 2000 11:49:55 UTC