- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 19:24:56 -0700
- To: <keshlam@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: <xml-uri@w3.org>, "David G. Durand" <david@dynamicDiagrams.com>, <masinter@attlabs.att.com>
> Reminder: It is not at all clear at this time that the person defining the > namespace is in fact defining semantics in any strong sense of the term. It > is certainly _preferable_ if everyone agrees that a particular expanded > name should be used for specific purposes. But there is nothing in today's > architecture which documents that intent, never mind acts on it or enforces > it. I agree, but I am not talking about the user of the identifier defining any semantics - the identifier is opaque. But when I as a user pick a name from some URI space (in order not to confuse it with XML namespaces), the URI space defines some properties for that name: can it be hierarchical, is it persistent, etc. etc. When I use a name from that URI space, I have to follow the rules the URI space dictates. This is very distinct, however, from any semantics that I define for the resource having the identifier. I define the semantics for my resource, I just use the properties of the name I give it. Henrik
Received on Thursday, 22 June 2000 22:25:36 UTC