W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2002

RE: TB16 Re: Comments on arch doc draft

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 17:49:49 +0100
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F04A06EEE@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Tim Bray'" <tbray@textuality.com>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org

Hi Tim,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@textuality.com]
> Sent: 02 July 2002 17:31
> To: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: TB16 Re: Comments on arch doc draft
> 
> Joshua Allen wrote:
> > This seems fine to me.  But for God's sake let's make sure any guidance
> > on this makes it very clear that this is a namespace *name*, and
> > although it may function as a stand-in for the namespace URI, it is
> > *not* the URI.
> 
> I can find no distinction in any normative prose anywhere between 
> "namespace name" and "namespace URI".  -Tim
> 

Not sure if [1] helps... Dare pointed the document out a couple of days ago
[2].

The Q&A seems to make a subtle distinction between "namespace name" and
"namespace uri" to cover cases where relative URI's are being used to name
namespaces. But I have no idea where this stands with respect to being
normative.

Cheers,

Stuart
--
[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xppa#47785312
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Jul/0001.html
Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2002 12:50:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:09 GMT