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

Re: status quo

From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 10:39:40 -0400
Message-Id: <200005211437.KAA13641@hesketh.net>
To: xml-uri@w3.org
At 07:23 PM 5/20/00 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
>	"The namespace URI specified in the XML document can be a URI
>	reference as defined in [RFC2396]; this means it can have a
>	fragment identifier and can be relative. A relative URI should
>	be resolved into an absolute URI during namespace processing:
>	the namespace URIs of expanded-names of nodes in the data model
>	should be absolute. Two expanded-names are equal if they have the
>	same local part, and either both have a null namespace URI or
>	both have non-null namespace URIs that are equal."
>
>	-- http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xpath-19991116#dt-expanded-name
>
>I think everybody agrees it's unfortunate that these two W3C
>Recommendations
>are inconsistent.
>
>The disagreement is on which one should be treated as a mistake
>to be fixed, and which one is to be recommended.

Treat XPath as a layer on top of XML 1.0 and Namespaces in XML, and this is
just application-specific behavior (in XPath) that expands on the
possibilities in XML and Namespaces.

Alternatively, we can keep going round-and-round on this.

Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
Building XML Applications
Inside XML DTDs: Scientific and Technical
Cookies / Sharing Bandwidth
http://www.simonstl.com
Received on Sunday, 21 May 2000 10:37:27 UTC

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