- From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 23:24:42 -0700
- To: xml-uri@w3.org
From: James Clark (jjc@JCLARK.COM) >Dan Connolly wrote: > >> But then the WG decided to include #fragids and changed the spec >> to say "URI reference", little realizing that this also >> allowed relative URI references. > >It was actually brought up several times. See the threads starting at: ... >I don't know why the editors chose not to do anything about it. The XML >WG never made a decision to allow relative URIs. FWIW, my recollection is that Dan told the group that once we'd said it was a URI reference we couldn't say anything more, because were within the scope of the RFC and couldn't micromanage within that scope. But that was a long time ago and I could be wrong. My sense is that the WG had consensus and would have banned 'em given the choice. Mind you, the namespace spec *does* forbid empty URI as namespace names, thereby going beyond the RFC, sigh... But forbidding empty names is the only way to make defaulting work sanely, so we were pretty well stuck there. >If a significant constituency thinks it's obvious relative namespace >URIs should be handled one way, and another significant constituency >thinks it's obvious they should be handled in another incompatible way, >the only reasonable solution I can see at this point is to phase >out/disallow/deprecate them. I don't think either way is obvious at all. But deprecation does seem to be the conservative, safe, thing to do at this point. -Tim
Received on Tuesday, 23 May 2000 02:21:47 UTC