• To: "John Cowan" <cowan@m...>,"Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@g...>
• Subject: RE: Namespace terminology
• From: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@g...>
• Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 09:54:16 +0100
• Cc: "John Cowan" <jcowan@r...>,"Lars Marius Garshol" <larsga@g...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <E16YGgV-0003O6-00@m...>

Well,

then I think it makes sense to say *that* (namespace names take the form of
URI references, but relative URIs are deprecated and should be avoided).

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan@m...]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 2:16 AM
> To: Julian Reschke
> Cc: John Cowan; Lars Marius Garshol; xml-dev@l...
> Subject: Re:  Namespace terminology
>
>
> Julian Reschke scripsit:
>
> > So why do you say that a namespace name isn't (identified by) a URI
> > reference?
>
> Because we established with great pain some time ago that relative
> URIs are a Really, Really Bad Idea in namespace names.  They are
> not technically illegal, but they are very deprecated.
>
> --
> John Cowan           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
> cowan@c...
> To say that Bilbo's breath was taken away is no description at all.  There
> are no words left to express his staggerment, since Men changed
> the language
> that they learned of elves in the days when all the world was wonderful.
>         --_The Hobbit_
>

• References:
  • Re: Namespace terminology
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>

• Prev by Date: XMLNoteTree Latest release available for download - with smaller URL
• Next by Date: RE: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Previous by thread: Re: Namespace terminology
• Next by thread: RE: Namespace terminology
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread