Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Jonathan Marsh <email@example.com>
- To: "'firstname.lastname@example.org'" <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 16:23:06 -0800
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> 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