- From: james anderson <james.anderson@setf.de>
- Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 10:47:32 +0200
- To: www-ql@w3.org
it is particularly ironic to be defending the position, that it would
be a particularly bad mistake to prescribe serialization of an
inadequate model, at the same time as the tag is deliberating a
finding, which suggests, among other things, that
"interoperability in networked information systems is best achieved by
specifying interfaces at the level of concrete syntax rather than
abstract data models or APIs"
On Friday, Oct 24, 2003, at 00:56 Europe/Berlin, Kay, Michael wrote:
> > the point of which is that, given the "32-bit name" which was
> > mentioned, which is close-enough to first-class, name instances can
> > serve, in themselves, to represent the information produced
> > by decoding
> > and required for encoding, and are, in themselves, a sufficient basis
> > for all operations on a closed model, without recourse to the
> > in-scope-namespace mechanism.
>
> This isn't true, because it doesn't allow you to record information
> about namespaces that are declared, but not used in element or
> attribute names. The whole point about namespace nodes is that such
> declarations need to be retained because the document might depend on
> the namespaces in other ways ("QNames in content") that only the
> application can know about.
>
> Michael Kay
>
Received on Friday, 24 October 2003 04:48:05 UTC