• From: "Bill la Forge" <b.laforge@j...>
• To: "Dan Brickley" <Daniel.Brickley@b...>, <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 08:28:42 -0500

>Yep. Why not just say that these properties are identified with URIs and
>leave it at that? http: URLs could then happily co-exist with URNs,
>uuid URLs etc etc without changing the basic architecture.


Well, I think we'd want to go the extra step and define some common
option names.

And since these need not be implemented, it would be good to define
a moderately comprehensive set of standard option names. The one
proviso should be that any names that are defined should have clear 
meaning, though its always a guess at to what will remain clear over time.

Bill


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...)

• 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