• To: ht@c... (Henry S. Thompson)
• Subject: Re: more QName madness
• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 15:37:07 -0500 (EST)
• Cc: veillard@r..., jcowan@r... (John Cowan), paul@p... (Paul Prescod), xml-dev@l..., simonstl@s... (Simon St.Laurent)
• In-reply-to: <f5b7kfalitb.fsf@e...> from "Henry S. Thompson" at Nov 18, 2002 08:33:04 PM

Henry S. Thompson scripsit:

> Sorry to be dense, but I just don't see how having a scheme name
> registry will solve, or even ameliorate, the interoperable
> implementation of scheme semantics.

Nor do I; that's not the reason for having a registry.

> At the end of the day, all we
> have is natural language documentation to define scheme semantics, and
> the obvious place to put such documentation is at the scheme namespace
> URI.  Are you saying that scheme registration should _require_ scheme
> semantics documentation?

Maybe so.  But what registration permits is compact scheme names;
arbitrary QNames with local declarations of a URI are certainly not compact.

-- 
You are a child of the universe no less         John Cowan
than the trees and all other acyclic            http://www.reutershealth.com
graphs; you have a right to be here.            http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
  --DeXiderata by Sean McGrath                  jcowan@r...

• References:
  • Re: more QName madness
    • From: ht@c... (Henry S. Thompson)

• Prev by Date: Re: more QName madness
• Next by Date: Re: more QName madness
• Previous by thread: Re: more QName madness
• Next by thread: Re: more QName madness
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread