On 16 October 2012 15:54, Liam R E Quin <> wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 11:47 +0100, Andrew Welch wrote:
>
>> xmlns:c="config"
>
> This is still, of course, a URI, but now it is a relative URL.
>
> Please don't do this.
>
> Ah, for the reasons that John has said.
>
> It looks nice but it does *not* have the meaning you seem to think it
> does. Hmm, I should add that to the course notes I'm writing.
>
> 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?
> 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...
> 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?
--
Andrew Welch
http://andrewjwelch.com
