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