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

> 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?

Julian