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

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

From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 20:03:59 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <200005171903.UAA18456@nag.co.uk>
To: xml-uri@w3.org

> The identity *is* in the name.  However, under this interpretation the
> name is not the literal string, but a syntactic conversion of it with
> respect to the "base URI" that every Web resource has.

Incidentally is there a canonical base URI for a file on my filesystem 
(say /users/davidc/file.xml)?


is one possibility, but there are others including using localhost.
I tried reading the relevant rfcs for uri but I couldn't find anything,
but I wasn't sure if I was looking in the right place:-)

Of course if the base URI is only used for making relative URI absolute
then it doesn't matter which of these functionally equivalent URI is
taken as the base, but as your table highlighted, URI identity isn't the
same thing as functional equivalence.

If relative namespace URI are allowed, and namspace names are taken to
be absolute, is it clear what is the namespace of xxx in
file.xml if the content of the file is

<xxx xmlns="abc"/>

Or will different systems make different choices?

Received on Wednesday, 17 May 2000 15:04:31 UTC

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