• To: "John Cowan" <jcowan@r...>,"Lars Marius Garshol" <larsga@g...>
• Subject: RE: Namespace terminology
• From: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@g...>
• Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 01:10:36 +0100
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <3C605C93.4030903@r...>

> From: John Cowan [mailto:jcowan@r...]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 11:29 PM
> To: Lars Marius Garshol
> Cc: xml-dev@l...
> Subject: Re:  Namespace terminology
>
>
> Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
>
>
> > I started out using "namespace name", but it turns out that
> > this is what the namespace URI is called[2].
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
> > [2] Why? It's the namespace URI, it doesn't need any more names.
>
> Because it's not technically a URI in all cases; it is a URI
> with optional fragment identifier.  Which is not the same
> as a URI reference, which is either a URI or a relative URL,
> either one with optional fragment identifier.

Hmmm.

RFC2396 says:

	URI-reference = [ absoluteURI | relativeURI ] [ "#" fragment ]

XML namespaces says:

	An XML namespace is a collection of names, identified by a URI reference...

So why do you say that a namespace name isn't (identified by) a URI
reference?


Puzzled,

Julian

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Namespace terminology
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>

• References:
  • Re: Namespace terminology
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Using <choice> to enforce rules
• Next by Date: Re: Namespace terminology
• Previous by thread: Re: Namespace terminology
• Next by thread: Re: Namespace terminology
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread