Re: Relative Namespaces

[Charles Reitzel <creitzel@mediaone.net>]

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,
Charles Reitzel


At 04:59 PM 3/14/01 -0800, Jeff Rafter wrote:
>======
>I know that relative namespace use was deprecated [5] 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?
>
>[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/#defaulting
>[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#declare-typesElementsAttributes
>[3]
>http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-2-Core/core.html#Namespaces-Considerations
>[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset/#intro
>[5] http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xppa
>
>Thanks,
>Jeff Rafter


take it easy,
Charles Reitzel