Re: Relative Namespaces
Missed one: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/#dt-identical "[Definition:] URI references which identify namespaces are considered identical when they are exactly the same character-for-character. Note that URI references which are not identical in this sense may in fact be functionally equivalent. Examples include URI references which differ only in case, or which are in external entities which have different effective base URIs." In effect, NS URIs must be absolute. Otherwise, they won't match out of context. In theory, you could use xml:base, but I don't think it is widely implemented. Even if it were, the base of an instance is typically different than the base of a namespace. Just one of the liberties [XML Names] takes with RFC 2396. My reading of the DOM just follows the above definition - except for the empty string bit. take it easy, Charles Reitzel At 04:59 PM 3/14/01 -0800, Jeff Rafter wrote: >====== >I know that relative namespace use was deprecated  but >why do the DOM Level 2 and XML Schema specs still include the use of >relative namespaces when they were released after the deprecation decision? > > http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/#defaulting > http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#declare-typesElementsAttributes > >http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-2-Core/core.html#Namespaces-Considerations > http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset/#intro > http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xppa > >Thanks, >Jeff Rafter take it easy, Charles Reitzel
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format