OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: simple question on namespaces.

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]
  • From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
  • To: "'xml-dev@lists.xml.org'" <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
  • Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 16:23:06 -0800

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jborden@mediaone.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2000 11:42 PM

> Usage of relativeURIs as namespace names
> while conformant to the namespace rec, results in such 
> document having no
> defined Infoset (i.e. it is not Infoset conformant). 

According to the latest XML Infoset Working Draft:

  Since the purpose of the Information Set is to provide 
  a set of definitions, conformance is a property of 
  specifications that use those definitions, rather than 
  of implementations. [http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset/]

In light of this, I find your claim of a _document_ not being "Infoset
conformant" confusing (only specifications can conform to the Infoset).  The
Infoset simply provides a common definition for "useful" items.  Relative
namespace URIs are not given a common definition because no common
definition emerged from the xml-uri debate.

I think a more accurate statement is: The behavior of relative URIs in
namespace declarations is ill-defined, as illustrated by the lack of a
defined treatment by the Infoset.

For most users, in practice this equates with:

> 7) Don't use relative URIs in namespace names.

- Jonathan Marsh


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS