• From: keshlam@u...
• To: John Aldridge <john.aldridge@i...>
• Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 09:40:53 -0400

> But this whole debate is not about what "XML Namespaces" says (that's
>largely uncontentious),

... It may not be. I think I'm starting to understand TBL's argument that
there may be value in saying that the Namespace URI, as declared, is not
"the name" per se, but is a reference to a point in URI space which
represents the namespace's identity. That may actually answer my "show me
how to make relative names make sense" objection... they may not be
_useful_, but there's a coherent way to interpret them.

It is still unclear that this interpretation really works, or that it's
worth the additional cycles and storage needed to implement it. But at
least I begin to see where the assumptions diverge.

______________________________________
Joe Kesselman  / IBM Research



***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@x...&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
***************************************************************************

• Prev by Date: Re: Possible changes for XML 2nd Edition
• Next by Date: Re: from XML+CSS to HTML only
• Previous by thread: Re: Irony heaped on irony
• Next by thread: RE: Irony heaped on irony
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread