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

Re: Namespaces, Xml Schema Whitespace normalization,xs:anyURI,

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Namespaces, Xml Schema Whitespace normalization,xs:anyURI, and URILiterals in XPath 2.0
• From: Martin Probst <martin@x...>
• Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 09:47:55 +0200
• In-reply-to: <3bb44c6e0603282236n451f0a6bo84987740e859e928@m...>
• Organization: X-Hive Corporation
• References: <20060328172851.3114.qmail@w...> <200603281927.k2SJRIHk024533@m...> <47330.60.229.226.213.1143596089.squirrel@i...> <3bb44c6e0603282236n451f0a6bo84987740e859e928@m...>

> Especially if ignoring them is not an option.

Is that so? I really wonder why we can't just agree that URIs are opaque
strings in the context of XML that should be used unchanged.

I just can't imagine that any user might actually benefit from these
normalisation rules if even the gurus argue about what is right or
wrong. You end up with behaviour that is totally unpredictable to the
user.

Martin

• References:
  • RE: Namespaces, Xml Schema Whitespace normalization, xs:anyURI, and URILiterals in XPath 2.0
    • From: Michele Vivoda <idmichele@y...>
  • RE: Namespaces, Xml Schema Whitespace normalization, xs:anyURI, and URILiterals in XPath 2.0
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <rjelliffe@a...>
  • Re: Namespaces, Xml Schema Whitespace normalization, xs:anyURI, and URILiterals in XPath 2.0
    • From: "bryan rasmussen" <rasmussen.bryan@g...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Namespaces, Xml Schema Whitespace normalization, xs:anyURI, and URILiterals in XPath 2.0
• Next by Date: RE: Namespaces, Xml Schema Whitespace normalization, xs:anyURI, and URILiterals in XPath 2.0
• Previous by thread: Re: Namespaces, Xml Schema Whitespace normalization, xs:anyURI, and URILiterals in XPath 2.0
• Next by thread: Re: Namespaces, Xml Schema Whitespace normalization, xs:anyURI, and URILiterals in XPath 2.0
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread