> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 2:48 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: javax.xml.transform: prohibiting Java extensions
>
>
>
> >According to Joe Kesselman
> >(http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xalan-dev&m=97024906624126&w=2), the
> >W3C has ruled that all namespace names should be absolute.
>
> Slight clarification:
>
> The W3C has ruled that non-absolute namespace URI will have undefined
> results. They may be treated as literal strings, they may be
> compared after
> absolutizing them in terms of a base URI, or the application may consider
> them an error and refuse to process them at all.
>
> They reserved the right to make relative namespaces meaningful at a later
> date, if and when someone comes up with an argument which will break this
> three-way deadlock. But until that is resolved, attempts to use relative
> URI references as namespace names will be nonportable at best, and
> definitely should be avoided.
Agreed. However, *any* URI starting with a scheme name is absolute, so
"xalan:..." is absolute no matter whether it has the "//" in it or not. I
just found the remark in the documentation misleading...
