Namespace-by-retrieval is consistent and coherent

> From: Clark C. Evans (cce@clarkevans.com)
>     DEFINE NAMESPACE EQUIVALENCE AS A BYTE-FOR-BYTE COMPARISON
>     OF THE RESOURCE AS RESOLVED *AND* RETRIEVED.

I think this proposal is coherent and consistent.  I also think that
given enough caching smarts, it is viable and implementable.  I'm not
sure that it has a very good cost-benefit trade-off, but reasonable people
may differ on this.

At the end of the day, there are only two consistent positions regarding
comparison and equivalence of namespace names:

1. byte-for-byte string comparison of the namespace name as given
2. byte-for-byte comparison of the indicated resource after retrieving it

All of the intervening positions are fatally compromised IMHO.  #1 has
the advantage that it's cheaper and requires less infrastructure.  #2 has
the advantage that it really does connect namespaces to the Web in a deep
way that's consistent with the underlying architecture, whatever that is.

I could live with #2.  Given a W3C recommendation on what dereferencing
the namespace name should yield (I recommend a packaging document compromising
a single (potentially large and complex) extende XLink), I could be
enthusiastic about it.  -Tim