• To: 'Elliotte Rusty Harold' <elharo@m...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: Article: Keeping pace with James Clark
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 09:08:40 -0500

Sounds good in theory and in the REC, but the 
insistence that URIs be dereferenceable makes 
it inconsistent in practice.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Elliotte Rusty Harold [mailto:elharo@m...]


At 8:20 AM -0500 7/18/02, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>Are these statements consistent?
>
>"...XML 1.0/XML Namespaces/XML Infoset/XML Base can be integrated 
>without an unreasonable amount of work and that the integration will 
>result in something significantly more coherent than what we have 
>now."
>
>"...the key lesson is that the lowest layers should deal only with 
>syntax and should be semantically neutral."

Yes, they are. Neither Infoset nor namespaces actually assigns any 
semantics to anything. Namespaces is sometimes used by local 
processes to assign semantics to particular elements in particular 
namespaces, but namespaces itself is just more syntax. The infoset 
assigns only the most bare bones semantics. Essentially it just 
defines another way of looking at XML. Only xml:base could arguably 
be claimed to be at the semantic level, and even that is less 
semantic than xml:lang.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Article: Keeping pace with James Clark
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>
  • Re: RE: Article: Keeping pace with James Clark
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XPointer and XML Schema
• Next by Date: Re: DTD ID REF
• Previous by thread: Re: Article: Keeping pace with James Clark
• Next by thread: Re: RE: Article: Keeping pace with James Clark
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread