W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > May 2001

Re: Positions on issue 19

From: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 22:14:57 +0100
Message-ID: <00b901c0e884$6bc518a0$0300a8c0@greyarea>
To: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, "Asir S Vedamuthu" <asirv@webmethods.com>, "Xml-Dist-App@W3. Org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Cc: "Allen Brown" <allenbr@microsoft.com>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
To: "Asir S Vedamuthu" <asirv@webmethods.com>; "Gudgin, Martin"
<marting@develop.com>; "Xml-Dist-App@W3. Org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Cc: "Allen Brown" <allenbr@microsoft.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 7:02 PM
Subject: RE: Positions on issue 19

Note that "no namespace" doesn't mean "the global null namespace". That
is, if I have unqualified "foo" in one context and unqualified "foo" in
another context then I can say nothing about how the two relate
regardless of them having the same unqualified name.


OK, now i'm confused. What's the 'global null namespace'? And how does it
differ from 'no namespace'?

Surely unqualified is unqualified. No more need be said...

Received on Tuesday, 29 May 2001 17:16:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:13 UTC