- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 07:56:50 +1100
- 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 namespace. 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 plural -- 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