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

RE: Use cases

From: David E. Cleary <davec@progress.com>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 13:51:04 -0400
To: "David G. Durand" <david@dynamicDiagrams.com>, <xml-uri@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NDBBIOBPAGDGFJAHFCGGEENICBAA.davec@progress.com>
> Except that this is not exactly the situation, as I have heard it
> explained by other Microsoft representatives. The _meaning_ of
> relative URLs as  used by Microsoft software is based on absolutizing
> the relative URL with respect to the document base and using it to
> retrieve a resource. The comparison semantics defined by the
> namespaces spec. are in fact ignored by this software. The namespaces
> specification defines the matching of namespace URIs for identity,
> and does not mandate or endorse any resolution strategy.

This is in contradiction to the detailed message a Microsoft representative
posted in the previous discussion within the W3C. Absolution is done only in
those cases of retrieval, not in comparison.

> Microsoft has a strong interest in preserving the legality of
> relative URI syntax for namespaces, because otherwise their
> resolution-based strategy really fails, and their documents become
> either non-conformant or deprecated.

Any document that uses relative URI syntax becomes non-conformant if said
syntax is made ilegal. All I ask is that if we make a change to the NS spec
that turns currently legal documents into non-conformant ones, that we do it
right and version XML.

David Cleary
Progress Software
Received on Wednesday, 17 May 2000 13:52:32 UTC

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