• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: It's Baaaacccckkkkkk!!!! Relative URIs in namespaces claw their wayout of the grave?
• From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 14:56:27 -0400

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Jul/0000.html

> From: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w...>
>
> I think we should establish at the strong SHOULD level that
> relative URIs should/must be allowed in a syntax wherever
> absolute ones are.

> The only example I can think of where they are not
> allowed (xmlns) was shown to be a problem at our Hawaii
> tag face-face


[For those lucky souls that weren't around for the first 
iteration of this debate from Hell, for which the W3C setup
a special mailing list to handle, see the voluminous
archives starting at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-uri/2000May/ ]

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: It's Baaaacccckkkkkk!!!! Relative URIs in namespaces claw their way out of the grave?
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Parsing XML on Netware
• Next by Date: Re: It's Baaaacccckkkkkk!!!! Relative URIs in namespaces claw their way out of the grave?
• Previous by thread: XML for basic structured web pages
• Next by thread: Re: It's Baaaacccckkkkkk!!!! Relative URIs in namespaces claw their way out of the grave?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread