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

Re: are many URIs ultimately relative? was RE: are 'cid' URLs relative?

From: Michael Mealling <michael@bailey.dscga.com>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 14:01:39 -0400
To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Cc: xml-uri@w3.org
Message-ID: <20000526140139.L9881@bailey.dscga.com>
On Fri, May 26, 2000 at 01:44:18PM -0500, Al Gilman wrote:
> At 11:34 AM 2000-05-26 -0400, Michael Mealling wrote:
> >In other words: I think the correct solution here is that the XML
> >Namespace document must say that Namespaces must be identified by
> >what the ABNF calls "absoluteURI" and that the URIs used by XML
> >Namespaces must be globally unique. But then again, I'm of the camp
> >that thinks you eventually want to resolve these things into some
> >sort of document that describes the namespace.
> >
> [where "some sort of document" may be defined as a query and not a static
> bucket of bits...]


> But then it shouldn't now say that the URIs used by XML Namespaces _must_
> be unique.
> It should say "Think twice before using one that is not reliably unique."


> The following compromise reflects a reasonable balance of backward and
> forward compatibility:
> a) perform syntactic processing based on literal comparison of ns-attr
> b) save for post-syntactic processing any context information implicated in
> the evaluation of xml:base; if this varies across namespaces in the
> document, save the relation.
> c) Warn on non-globally-unique ns-attr

I'd have to noodle on it a bit but that sounds reasonable to me...


Michael Mealling	|      Vote Libertarian!       | www.rwhois.net/michael
Sr. Research Engineer   |   www.ga.lp.org/gwinnett     | ICQ#:         14198821
Network Solutions	|          www.lp.org          |  michaelm@netsol.com
Received on Friday, 26 May 2000 14:12:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:13:58 UTC