- From: John Robert Gardner <jrgardn@emory.edu>
- Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 11:56:25 -0400 (EDT)
- To: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- cc: connolly@w3.org, xml-dev@xml.org, xml-uri@w3.org
On Thu, 18 May 2000, David Carlisle wrote: > > We have documented this since Feb '98, when XML 1.0 became > > a recommendation despite the lack of namespace support: > > --http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/NOTE-webarch-extlang-19980210#Evolving > > One would have assumed though that a later REC would supersede any > comments in an early NOTE. The description of namespace that you quote In a syntactic, but not semantic sense. This line of argument presumes no judicatory relevance in dissenting opinions by Supreme Court Justices. > there may have been the intention at the time (and clearly is what you > wish namespaces had become) but it is nothing like the concept of > namespace defined in the namespace rec. A fundamental construct of meaning is the evolved history implicit (even if not explicit ==> string viz. e.g., semantic pointer) in a "name" or, "semantic instance," cf. the Oxford English Dictionary, voluminous based upon its meticulous attention to evolved versioning in meaning. The tapestry of meaning unravells when only the "final canon" is taken as valid . . . meaning is ontologically backward compatible. Foucault, Spivak, et al note this well in the extemely important contribution to narrative and, by implication, semantic content with the notion of the import of "subaltern" readings (check the OED on that term, viz. this URI/Namespaces issue, it offers useful conceptual perspectives). respectfully, JohnRobert Gardner > > David > This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers. > To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@xml.org&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev > List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ > *************************************************************************** >
Received on Thursday, 18 May 2000 12:33:19 UTC