• From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@m...>
• To: "'xml-dev@l...'" <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 16:23:06 -0800

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jborden@m...]
> 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
  jmarsh@m...

• Prev by Date: Re: Bring back src? (was Re: simple question on namespaces.)
• Next by Date: Re: XML-to-XML conversion utilities
• Previous by thread: RE: simple question on namespaces.
• Next by thread: Re: simple question on namespaces.
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread