- From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
- Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 17:53:24 -0400
- To: "John Cowan" <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
- Cc: <xml-uri@w3.org>
John Cowan wrote: > Jonathan Borden wrote: > > > Is there a class of problems caused by relative URIs that isn't also caused > > by un-normalized URIs? > > Yes! The fact that two apparently distinct absolute URIs (e.g. > "http://one.example.com/foo" and "http://two.example.com/foo") refer to the same > thing is a very different problem from the fact that apparently identical > relative URI references (e.g. "foo" in doc1 and "foo" in doc2) refer to > different things. Actually the point is that both absolute URIs may point to different things over time and that in terms of 'identity' URIs are only invariant in terms of their name not what is referenced. > Nothing but confusion is gained by mixing up these issues. > What I am saying is if referencing a URI is *defined* to determine the document type (via schema), that this document type may vary depending on time and place regardless of whether the URI is relative or absolute. This example was posted in response to the "detonator" example. In order to really determine whether relative URIs actually cause a problem, you need to show a concrete example of a problem unique to relative URIs. I have no doubt such problems exist but if we bring these out in the open we can see exactly what the implications of a proposed change in the namespace spec might bring. My current opinion is that one who defines a relative URI for a namespace is responsable for assuming such risks and unless there are real world and very significant problems which occur - caveat emptor. Jonathan Borden
Received on Thursday, 25 May 2000 18:02:15 UTC