Advancing into the trenches of the relative URIs in namespaces debate, the xml-uri mailing list is trying to sort out the complex relationship between
namespaces and URIs.
Tim Berners-Lee started out with a response
to 'the Pope':
"(Using URIs is crucially important for the architecture, and forbidding relative URIs while workable is an
inferior solution)... I have a (perhaps naif) trust in the outcome of a technically sound solution and a relief of misunderstandings.
Maybe my naivete will be tested at this point.."
After a number of others had questioned the reliability of relative URIs in namespace situations and
asked about shifting complexity among user
groups, Tim Bray, one of the editors of the Namespaces in XML
Recommendation, supported Tim Berners-Lee on
many points, but parted ways at relative URIs:
"If I may quote tediously again from the namespace recommendation:
"The namespace name, to serve its intended purpose, should have the characteristics of uniqueness and
persistence.
"
Relative URI references have many virtues; but they do not include either uniqueness or persistence.
Working with them underlines, if it were needed, the point I made above: you really can't tell anything useful by examining a
URI as a string; you have to go get the resource. Thus it is my view a huge bug that that the Namespace recommendation doesn't
forbid the use of relative URI references. "
Joe Kesselman suggested that:
"For me, the critical question -- which _nobody_ was able to answer -- was "How can one write an
application that performs namespace-aware document processing if namespace names are compared after absolutizing." Until
that is answered, I won't be able to consider that a reasonable approach."
Dicussion will undoubtedly continue.
To subscribe: send mail to mailto:xml-uri-request@w3.org
with 'subscribe' in the subject line.
Related stories: