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

Re: RDF namespace conventions

From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@dyomedea.com>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 21:26:30 +0200
Message-ID: <392989E6.C6683993@dyomedea.com>
To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, xml-uri@w3.org
Al Gilman wrote:
> 
> At 11:51 AM 2000-05-22 -0400, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
> >
> >So, the layer separation you suggest would work only with either
> >(a) no relative URIs -- at least a warning that XML lower layers don't grok
> >them, or
> >(b) change lower layers to absolutize before comparing.
> >
> >Either of these would be consistent.  The second would be cleaner.
> >
> 
> Cleaner product, dirtier process.  [Personal opinion: not enough cleaner
> product to warrant the process breakage.]
> 
> (a) under the 'warning' interpretation (NOT "no relative") might seem to be
> the most-broadly-agreeable way to move ahead.  We haven't taken a fresh
> straw poll in this group to be sure.

Absolutization at a very low level might also mean a lost of information
which can be a problem for some tools.

If, for instance, it was done at a SAX level, the XSLT processors
getting only absolute URIs wouldn't be able to generate namespaces with
relative URIs (might be a way to rapidly get rid of them, though ;=) ).

Eric

> Al

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist       Dyomedea                    http://dyomedea.com
http://xmlfr.org         http://4xt.org              http://ducotede.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 22 May 2000 15:29:44 UTC

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