Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> My > point, though, was that the ostensible reason for which we > are exploring a > namespacing scheme is our hope of disambiguating names so > that processors may > handle instance names and the content associate with them in > a sensible and > appropriate way. I think your point and my point are related, but different. I'm arguing for a simpler namespace mechanism, and I think you're arguing for a better one. > Try as you might you > cannot take the > semantics--in the form of the differing processing which > different syntactic > labels will signal--out of any such registry. Maybe this is our argument: I say you can build a registry with entries meaning: 1) I am unique name 2) I am registered to some entity What I can't do is prevent semantics from being associated with those entities. But that is not the purpose, and is outside the scope of the registry. As a matter of fact, you could do away with a registry altogether, and just have some black box authority that tells you either "that prefix is unique; you may own it" or "that string is not prefix; try again". Want to know what prefixes are registered? Tough! You'll just have to guess. I do it for web site registrations every day. > Simply > understood, such a registry > is a shorthand for the semantics which will be elaborated > from processing to be > chosen on the basis of the syntax registered. You can continue to insist on that, but I will continue for now to respectfully disagree. Try me again in a few months when I'm grey and wiser and I might be more receptive.
|
