Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck)

At 10:02 PM 5/29/00 -0400, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
>Almost.  The problem I see is that if we follow (1), which at this point I 
>or less agree with, then there's a nasty inconsistency between the namespace
>spec and the definition of expanded names in the XPath spec.  The working 
>you speak of would have to look at, and propose revisions to, all specs that
>are impacted by the string-literal interpretation of namespace names, not just
>the namespace spec itself.  XPath is an instance but  not the only 
>one.   XBase
>is another.

I don't believe that XML Base ( is impacted by 
this at all.  It merely defines a new way to set bases (in addition to 
existing ways); it can't definitively say who or what will use a base, 
other than talking generically about "relative URIs."

In any case, XML Base isn't a REC, and there's still an opportunity to 
change things.  I know of specs-in-progress that may need updating on this 
issue, but don't know of any other RECs besides XPath that are inconsistent 
with the Namespaces REC as it stands.

Eve Maler                                    +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center    elm @

Received on Wednesday, 31 May 2000 13:33:38 UTC