Re: [xml-dev] It's Baaaacccckkkkkk!!!! Relative URIs in namespaces claw their way out of the grave?

@#X! @#X!  @#X!

That's the politest thing I can find to say about this stunningly 
depressing development.  I'm glad I unsubbed from www-tag, since the rumors 
are bleak enough without the bitter reality.

I'll pray that this suggestion doesn't mean what it looks like, and hope 
that the SHOULD evolves into something more like a MAY.

At 02:56 PM 7/1/2002 -0400, Mike Champion wrote:
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Jul/0000.html
>
> > From: "Tim Berners-Lee" <>
> >
> > 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/ ]
>
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
>initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
>The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>

Simon St.Laurent
"Every day in every way I'm getting better and better." - Emile Coue