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

Re: A little courtesy, please

From: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 15:38:54 -0400
Message-ID: <392D814E.3487DF78@reutershealth.com>
To: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
CC: xml-uri@w3.org
Jonathan Marsh wrote:

> If I have a document with relative URIs (not in namespaces), and I send it
> through a pipe so that there is no base, and then retrieve it from the pipe
> and put it in a new location, all is well.  It is still a well-formed +
> namespace compliant document the whole time.  I can't resolve the relative
> URIs during the transitory period that the document is in the pipe, but no
> information loss occurs.

Umm, okay.  Information is *changed* by this process, at least, but I see
your point: it remains both well-formed and namespace-valid (yes, I know
that term is not defined anywhere).
 
> If names are absolutized, during the time the document is in the pipe, it is
> simply not a legal document according to the namespace spec.  Accounting for
> this enforces substantial limitations on the useage of XML not well
> justified by current practice, and requires a redesign of many (all?)
> namespace-aware interfaces (standard or otherwise) to XML documents.

Yes, indeed.  This is IMHO a *very* strong argument. 

> Granted.  But you seem to concur with my basic assertion, that the end
> result for the average user is the same - "don't use them".

Yes.

-- 

Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau,  || http://www.reutershealth.com
Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau,           || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.            -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)
Received on Thursday, 25 May 2000 15:39:25 UTC

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