> From: xml-uri-request@w3.org [mailto:xml-uri-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of > Clark C. Evans > Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 5:04 AM > To: Tim Berners-Lee > Cc: John Cowan; xml-uri@w3.org > Subject: Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? > > > On Thu, 18 May 2000, Tim Berners-Lee wrote: > > XPath explicitly calls for absolutization before comparison. > > Gosh. I have read the spec many times... and have > consistently missed this sentance in the specification. > I feel very dumb at the moment. I guess I had never > expected the XPath spec to *redefine* the specific > definitions (of identity) laid out so clearly in the > namespace specification. > > Luckly, I don't think I am alone. I tried out relative > namespaces on XT -- James Clark's software does not > seem to be doing this absolutization; but perhaps my > testing is such that I don't quite understand what > would reasonably be absolutized or how it would be > absolutized. Does *any* XSLT processor (implementing > XPath) support relative URI absolutization? Playing the devil's advocate...: So maybe it's XPath that needs to and should be fixed, not the namespace rec? JulianReceived on Friday, 19 May 2000 02:36:46 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:13:58 UTC