• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Namespace terminology
• From: Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@g...>
• Date: 05 Feb 2002 22:40:21 +0100
• In-reply-to: <NDBBLMPNADEOOKGELJALMEIICHAA.elenz@x...>
• References: <NDBBLMPNADEOOKGELJALMEIICHAA.elenz@x...>

* Evan Lenz
| 
| I like the term used by the XPath 1.0 spec: "expanded-name" (or,
| depending on your naming convention of choice, "expanded_name",
| etc.)

Yes, that works. The definition fits very closely, it appears in an
official document, and the connection between the name and what it
signifies is pretty logical.

* Tim Bray
|
| Universal names?  Unames?

Not as logical as exanded name, but if it had been in official use I
think I would have accepted it. I prefer expanded name, though.

Thanks a lot, both of you!

-- 
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
ISO SC34/WG3, OASIS GeoLang TC        <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Namespace terminology
    • From: "Michael Fitzgerald" <mike@w...>

• References:
  • RE: Namespace terminology
    • From: "Evan Lenz" <elenz@x...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Categories of Web Service messages: data-oriented vs action-oriented
• Next by Date: RE: Categories of Web Service messages: data-oriented v s action-oriented
• Previous by thread: RE: Namespace terminology
• Next by thread: RE: Namespace terminology
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread