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

RE: Injective Quality (Was: Re: URIs quack like a duck)

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 11:23:29 -0700
Message-ID: <116DFD732FA92E4D9B647C8EEF6DAF1015E219@red-pt-02.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "'Tim Berners-Lee'" <timbl@w3.org>
Cc: xml-uri@w3.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Berners-Lee [mailto:timbl@w3.org]

> The only nasty bit for XML is that of the uniqueness of attributes.
> It is the only time tha the DOM needs to compare namespaces.

I assume that instead of "DOM" you mean "namespace validator" or something
like that.  DOM Level 2 compares namespaces in other places too, for
instance getAttributeNS().  Furthermore, support for relative URIs would
need to be added, for instance the ability to get/set the base URI of the
document so relative URIs could be used, and/or new exceptions when
absolutization fails.  Bringing the DOM in line with absolutization is not
as trivial as you imply.  Bringing the DOM in line with literal comparisons
_is_ trivial - that's the way it's designed right now.

And DOM Level 2 is not the only API that needs to be reexamined.  It has
lagged behind Namespaces so long that non-W3C interfaces have emerged to
fill the gap.  Any API assuming the simplest interpretation of namespaces
(literal interpretation) may need to be redesigned to support base URIs and
relative URIs.  Any API assuming absolutization (if any exist) will likely
have a much simpler time changing to support literal comparisons.

- Jonathan Marsh
  Mirosoft
Received on Tuesday, 30 May 2000 14:24:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:43 UTC