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

Re: Use cases

From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 00:38:42 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <200005202338.AAA11430@nag.co.uk>
To: timbl@w3.org
CC: xml-uri@w3.org

> If no one on this list can come up with an example where relative URIs
> have to be trated as strings or the document will break, then maybe it
> could be a small problem.

I can't believe you wrote that.

Currently you can use "schema" (or whatever) as the namespace uri and
have a schema validator follow that, and as long as you move the
document and schema together the schema validator is happy.
(this may not be a goal but everyone agrees it is allowed)

In addition if you want to style the document you can use "schema"
as the namespace in the templates.

You claim this is inconsistent (I am not sure what it is inconsistent
with, but anyway, lets assume the namespace rec is changed)

Now you can not, in general, style the document at all. In one
particular instance you may know the absolute URI, but all the benefits
of the relative URI are now gone: if you move the document and schema
the element changes its namespace so you have to edit the stylesheet to
match. 

In some special cases if you have the correct write permissions you may
be able to put the stylesheet on the same server and move it with the
document so as to use a relative URI in all cases, but in general you
can not do this.

So for the purposes of schema validation you have no change, but for 
all the uses to which namespaces are normally used, the document is
entirely broken.

How is this an improvement?

David
Received on Saturday, 20 May 2000 19:39:15 UTC

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