• From: "Borden, Jonathan" <jborden@m...>
• To: <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 07:14:47 -0500

Jonathan Borden
JABR Technology Corp.
http://jabr.ne.mediaone.net

> >
> I'm all for fully qualified names, but I don't see why we should
> repeat the
> error of using "http://" names for things that are not accessible via the
> HTTP protocol. What's wrong with
> "org.xml.sax.option.validation"?
>
> Or is this overkill anyway? Why not just say that names beginning with
> "sax:" are reserved?
>

	uris aren't required to the http: prefix, nor are they required to employ
DNS for name resolution. for example:

	"urn:org:sax:option:validation"

	and

	"urn:org:sax" are both perfectly acceptable namespace uris.

Jonathan Borden
http://jabr.ne.mediaone.net




xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• References:
  • RE: Why SAX needs namespace support
    • From: Michael.Kay@i...

• Prev by Date: RE: Why SAX needs namespace support
• Next by Date: RE: Why SAX needs namespace support
• Previous by thread: RE: Why SAX needs namespace support
• Next by thread: Re: Why SAX needs namespace support
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread