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

Re: Positions on issue 19

From: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 08:18:17 +0100
Message-ID: <006401c0e8e5$50b81510$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: "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>; "Asir S Vedamuthu"
<asirv@webmethods.com>; "Xml-Dist-App@W3. Org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Cc: "Allen Brown" <allenbr@microsoft.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 12:06 AM
Subject: RE: Positions on issue 19



>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...

It was in reference to your comment about existing APIs. What I wanted
to make clear is that even though "" migth seem to match "" then the
(false) conclusion should not be drawn that two unqualified elements
with no namespace "matches" in the sense that they can be known to be
the same elements.

[MJG]
OK, I now understand the point. To be honest though I think the same applies
to qualified elements in certain cases. Context is everything!

Gudge
Received on Wednesday, 30 May 2001 04:50:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:01 GMT