Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 16:09 +0100, Andrew Welch wrote: > On 16 October 2012 15:54, Liam R E Quin <liam@w...> wrote: > > On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 11:47 +0100, Andrew Welch wrote: [...] > > One problem is that you can create non-portable documents - software is > > free (unfortunately) to resolve "config" as a relative URI reference > > using the base URI of the containing resource, so that the actual > > namespace URI in the document would vary depending on the document's > > location. > > ....which is clearly madness, surely, right? One person's madness is another person's genius. > > Another is software that will go use that relative URI to fetch a schema > > of some sort. > > I also really wouldnt want that happening either... It does, though, fairly often. > > I was disappointed, as I'd always hoped we (the XMLers) would define a > > catalog of some sort that could be located at a namespace URI and used > > to locate schemas, DTDs, stylesheets, documentation, entity definitions, > > code fragments and so forth. RDDL-style. But the consensus was that such > > things are neither forbidden nor encouraged, and relative URIs should > > not be used as a namespace name. > > why wedge it in with namespaces? Why not some other xml: prefixed attribute? Because I wanted the concept of validating a namespace - I wanted a document that gave a list of visible names, and possibly also code to implement behaviour associated with those names. I didn't win that one, although I revisited some of it with "automatic namespaces" and "unobtrusive namespaces" a little. Liam -- Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
