- From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 20:01:11 -0400
- To: <xml-uri@w3.org>, "Eve L. Maler" <Eve.Maler@east.sun.com>
-----Original Message----- From: Eve L. Maler <Eve.Maler@east.sun.com> To: xml-uri@w3.org <xml-uri@w3.org> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 11:50 AM Subject: 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. Well, actually it wasn't empty there exactly because as you point out the spec [brokenly IMHO] assigns a special meaning (of which I don't understand the purpose) to an empty URI. An empty URI is defined by the URI RFC to refer to the current document. Chris had to use "#" to refer to the current document for this reason. But I wasn't going to get into that discussion then... but I suppose a thread for it would be appropriate. >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...) That is indeed why it was there. Tim BL > Eve > >[1] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt, Section 4.2 >-- >Eve Maler +1 781 442 3190 >Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center elm @ east.sun.com >
Received on Thursday, 18 May 2000 02:33:49 UTC