[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Eric van der Vlist scripsit:
> Is that an indication that the WG did really want to allow relative URIs
> or does "URI reference" have a different meaning in the namespaces
> specification?
The story is that in the original namespaces specification, namespaces
were defined to be URI references, but were also defined to be equivalent
if and only if they were character-by-character identical. That meant
that URI resolution (the process of making a URI reference into a URI
with possible fragment identifier) gave the wrong answer about equality:
"././foo" and "./foo" resolved to the same URI, but were distinct as
namespaces.
Battle raged over whether the definition of namespace equality should
be changed to take URI resolution into account, or whether relative-URL
namespaces should be banned. The final compromise was that they were
allowed but heavily deprecated: a document using relative URLs for
namespaces has no Infoset, allowing the Infoset to deliver resolved URIs
as the namespace names of elements and attributes (since where there
are no relative URLs, resolution is the identity operation).
--
John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
http://www.reutershealth.com http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Yakka foob mog. Grug pubbawup zink wattoom gazork. Chumble spuzz.
-- Calvin, giving Newton's First Law "in his own words"
|
