[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
Eric van der Vlist scripsit: > Is that an indication that the WG did really want to allow relative URIs > or does "URI reference" have a different meaning in the namespaces > specification? The story is that in the original namespaces specification, namespaces were defined to be URI references, but were also defined to be equivalent if and only if they were character-by-character identical. That meant that URI resolution (the process of making a URI reference into a URI with possible fragment identifier) gave the wrong answer about equality: "././foo" and "./foo" resolved to the same URI, but were distinct as namespaces. Battle raged over whether the definition of namespace equality should be changed to take URI resolution into account, or whether relative-URL namespaces should be banned. The final compromise was that they were allowed but heavily deprecated: a document using relative URLs for namespaces has no Infoset, allowing the Infoset to deliver resolved URIs as the namespace names of elements and attributes (since where there are no relative URLs, resolution is the identity operation). -- John Cowan <jcowan@r...> http://www.reutershealth.com http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Yakka foob mog. Grug pubbawup zink wattoom gazork. Chumble spuzz. -- Calvin, giving Newton's First Law "in his own words"
|
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
|