>> This is why many of us voted for the Literal String solution. It gives us a >> version that permits the reliable recognizability promised by Namespaces, >> _and_ permits relative syntax for those who want that option. The >> alternatives all seem to break one community or the other. > >However, it creates an exception to the usual rules of URI-reference >interpretation. Only if you insist that the Namespace Name is in fact a URI-reference. If we accept that it is a string which is _formatted_ as a URI reference -- in other words, that it only becomes a reference when you actively attempt to use it as one by combining it with a base address -- there really shouldn't be a problem. ______________________________________ Joe Kesselman / IBM ResearchReceived on Tuesday, 16 May 2000 16:52:41 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Tuesday, 12 April 2005 12:17:22 GMT