[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Relative Namespaces
- From: Charles Reitzel <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Jeff Rafter <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 23:37:30 -0500
Missed one: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/#dt-identical
"[Definition:] URI references which identify namespaces are
considered identical when they are exactly the same
character-for-character. Note that URI references which are
not identical in this sense may in fact be functionally
equivalent. Examples include URI references which differ
only in case, or which are in external entities which
have different effective base URIs."
In effect, NS URIs must be absolute. Otherwise, they won't match out of context. In theory, you could use xml:base, but I don't think it is widely implemented. Even if it were, the base of an instance is typically different than the base of a namespace.
Just one of the liberties [XML Names] takes with RFC 2396.
My reading of the DOM just follows the above definition - except for the empty string bit.
take it easy,
At 04:59 PM 3/14/01 -0800, Jeff Rafter wrote:
>I know that relative namespace use was deprecated  but
>why do the DOM Level 2 and XML Schema specs still include the use of
>relative namespaces when they were released after the deprecation decision?
take it easy,