W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-id@w3.org > February 2005

Re: Change namespace of xml:id

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 07:56:50 +1100
Message-ID: <1701345519.20050209075650@w3.org>
To: "John Boyer" <JBoyer@PureEdge.com>
Cc: veillard@redhat.com, "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net>, public-xml-id@w3.org

On Wednesday, February 9, 2005, 6:36:05 AM, John wrote:

JB> Your *opinion* is that it is broken, and your conclusion that a 'mistake'
JB> was made is based on that opinion.

So, in your opinion, a specification can make pronouncements about the
behavior of reserved attributes and this is correct?

JB> But your opinion is based entirely on not interpreting the word 'identify'
JB> in the same way that I do.  How do you justify identifying two non-equal
JB> sets of names with the same identity?

Identity, for a namespace URI, is based on strong comparison. It
compares the URIs. I does not compare the set of identifiers in that

JB> You can be annoyed with a technical opinion that differs from yours,
JB> and the W3C is welcome to 'fix' C14N if it likes so that only the
JB> two attributes described in XML 1.0 are handled in the way described.

That seems a likely outcome.

JB> But the post hoc addition of names to the namespace identified by
JB> a URI (once a recommendation is let) remains an abuse of the notion 
JB> of namespace

No, it does not. It remains one possible way to manage evolution of a
namespace - one the W3C does use.

JB> due to the normative definition of namespace appearing 
JB> Namespaces in XML.

I agree that the normative definition of the URI appeared in XML 1.0. It
would be an error to redefine that URI. The URI has not been redefined.

JB>   You can do it now, but don't expect this to be the
JB> only problem that crops up over time.  The W3C has policies


 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group
Received on Tuesday, 8 February 2005 20:56:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:53:49 UTC