[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• From: Mike Brown <mike@s...>
• Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 09:25:18 -0600 (MDT)
• In-reply-to: <E17b0Ds-0007rB-00@m...> "from Uche Ogbuji at Aug 3,2002 08:49:19 am"

Uche Ogbuji wrote:
> If XMLNS were to change to make the strings syntactically URI refs, would it 
> not require a change of the edict forbidding relative namespaces?  Not that I 
> know anything about that edict except through rumor.

The edict is in the errata.
http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-names-19990114-errata

  "The use of relative URI references in namespace declarations is
   deprecated. Future W3C specifications will define no interpretation
   for them."

However it fails to mention that there is at least one relative URI reference
that cannot be forbidden: the empty string.

Anyway, namespace identifiers are already unaffected by base URIs, so
I'm not sure what change would be necessary, other than just saying
the strings are syntactically either an empty string or an absolute URI
reference.

   - Mike
____________________________________________________________________________
  mike j. brown                   |  xml/xslt: http://skew.org/xml/
  denver/boulder, colorado, usa   |  resume: http://skew.org/~mike/resume/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
    • From: Richard Tobin <richard@c...>

• References:
  • Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>

• Prev by Date: A good joke...
• Next by Date: Re: constructive (was RE: Markup perspective notcode)
• Previous by thread: Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• Next by thread: Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread