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

Re: Namespace URI question

• To: Jeff Lowery <jlowery@s...>
• Subject: Re: Namespace URI question
• From: "J.Pietschmann" <j3322ptm@y...>
• Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 20:28:00 +0100
• Cc: "Xml-Dev (E-mail)" <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <879123D97A01D711B0F500508B4464E4027764@l...>
• References: <879123D97A01D711B0F500508B4464E4027764@l...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130

Jeff Lowery wrote:
> Sorry, I mistyped that. Let's try again:
> 
> xmlns:foo="file:///foodom.xsd"    
> 
> My (possibly incorrect) understanding (although I have read the RFC) is that
> the URI location is {base URL} + /foodom.xsd.

Not quite correct.
The relevant RFC is
  http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt
(unless it has been obsoleted by a newer one recently.
Your URL is an absolute URL. This is *not* the same as an
absolute (file) path. However, an absolute URL is not to
be resolved against a base URL, by definition. Only relative
URLs can and often should be resolved, thereby producing an
absolute URL (also by definition).

 >  Meaning its an absolute path,
 > relative to the root-of-the-moment.
I have no idea what this should mean.

In any case, it is unusual and perhaps unwise to use a file URL
to indentify a name space. While the spec is fuzzy enough to allow
basically arbitrary Unicode strings, the rationale for choosing
URIs is to uniquely identify the name space, i.e. to provide a
string unique in the whole universe. Using HTTP URLs comes
reasonably close to this intention.

J.Pietschmann

• References:
  • RE: Namespace URI question
    • From: Jeff Lowery <jlowery@s...>

• Prev by Date: RE: The privilege of XML parsing - Data types,binary XM
• Next by Date: RE: The privilege of XML parsing - Data types,binary XML
• Previous by thread: RE: Namespace URI question
• Next by thread: Re: Namespace URI question
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread