Re: Choose your namespace (Was : Personal view)

> > It
> > is inherently impossible to guarantee that the rule in section 5.3
about
> > uniqueness of attributes is detected in all cases.
>
> It is only impossible to do that if you so radically change the
> namespace spec to make that so. As currently definied it is trivial
> to guarantee that, and that is why namespaces are defined in that way.

Nope, it is possible in any system to declare (either via social policy or
in automated fashion) that two things are the same and so there is never
any mechanism for guaranteeing that there might not be conflict.

> The _essential_ feature of namespace names is that that they support
> rapid and 100% accurate comparison that does not depend on the parser
> being used. The current namespace spec provides that. Any features you
> get from using URI syntax are not essential (or even used) by a
> namespace parser, (but may be used by applications layered over the
> parser, of course). If using URI syntax makes people (two years too
> late) seriously suggest that that implies that a namespace parser
> has to be aware of all this extra baggage, then perhaps we should
> consider giving up on URI altogether for namespace names and using
> java package names or some other naming scheme that is less likely to
> trigger such reactions.

Excuse me - NS already use URI syntax so I don't see what your point is.
"All that extra baggage" is not a property of URIs - it is a property of
living in a highly decentralized system. Live with it.

Henrik

Received on Monday, 19 June 2000 18:41:17 UTC