Re: namespace usage as assertions

At 12:50 2000 06 29 -0400, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
>John Cowan wrote:
>> keshlam@us.ibm.com wrote:
>> > [W]e have to
>> > define namespaces as matching if and only if we're sure their URIs
match --
>> > that is, if the two names are precisely string-equal.
>>
>> But!
>>
>> You are blurring the question for which this list was defined: do two
namespaces
>> match if their *URI*s are string-equal, or is it if the *URI references*
through
>> which they were specified are string-equal?  That is "absolutize" vs.
"literal".
>>
>> > The best way I know to simplify these points for pedagogical purposes --
>> > and to simplify and speed up the implementations of this logic -- is
to say
>> > "The URI is just compared literally". This continues to bias me heavily
>> > away from the Absolutize behavior.
>>
>> Au contraire, it *is* the Absolutize behavior; you are kicking the ball
into
>> your own goalposts.  The Literal behavior is that the URI references are
>> compared literally.
>
>There's something very worrisome here when two such smart, articulate, and
>well-informed people have such a basic disagreement, not about what ought
to be,
>but about what is.

I don't see it that way.  The above exchange is a question of terminology.
It really shouldn't be that hard to realize that "URI" and "URI reference"
are different things (and I know Joe understands this).

A lot of what this public discussion has accomplished is to get folks
to understand the terminology and details of RFC 2396 better.  Joe's
point, I think, was about pedagogy which is valid but hard to argue
one way or the other on technical merits.