keshlam@us.ibm.com wrote: > Is there anyone out there who is still undecided on the question of how > best to handle namespace names? Yes, me. And I need a decision (and I need to know what it is, and I need to know that it's final...) > OF THOSE, is there anyone who feels that further discussion will help them > decide? It might. In particular, the idea of "two kinds of namespace names" was NOT discussed to death on xml-core-wg and xml-plenary. To restate: 1) A namespace name that looks like an absolute URI, possibly with appended fragment-identifier, is what it looks like. 2) Any other namespace name is not a URI reference. 3) Equality of namespace names is string equality. An alternative version of 1: 1a) A namespace name that looks like a URI reference and contains either ':' or '/' is what it looks like. > IF NOT: Move to close debate. I think we've covered all the pros and cons > in painful detail at this point, and have gotten to the point where we > aren't likely to change any minds by discussing it further. I hope you are wrong, because that means that consensus decision making has failed. -- Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau, || http://www.reutershealth.com Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau, || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Und trank die Milch vom Paradies. -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)Received on Monday, 22 May 2000 13:59:12 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Tuesday, 12 April 2005 12:17:22 GMT