RE: TB16 Re: Comments on arch doc draft

My understanding is that namespace name and namespace URI are used
interchangeably.  I understand that there was an accord between the XSL
working group and XML Core working group to move towards using namespace
name, but that didn't hold up, only because there were more pressing
matters.  

I personally prefer namespace name, as I don't like putting the name of the
type (URI) into the name of the thing.  

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> Dare Obasanjo
> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 9:50 AM
> To: Tim Bray; www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: RE: TB16 Re: Comments on arch doc draft
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@textuality.com] 
> Sent: Tue 7/2/2002 9:31 AM 
> To: www-tag@w3.org 
> Cc: 
> Subject: Re: TB16 Re: Comments on arch doc draft
> 
> >> This seems fine to me.  But for God's sake let's make sure 
> any guidance
> >> on this makes it very clear that this is a namespace *name*, and
> >> although it may function as a stand-in for the namespace URI, it is
> >> *not* the URI.
> 
> >I can find no distinction in any normative prose anywhere between
> >"namespace name" and "namespace URI".  -Tim
> 
> a.) Just because the W3C working groups have overlooked the 
> difference does not mean one does not exist
> 
> b.) I haven't seen any normative prose where the term 
> "namespace name" is normatively linked with "namespace URI" 
> nor can I find one where "namespace URI" is normatively 
> designed. XQuery, XPath and XSLT use "namespace URI" while 
> XML Schema and Namespaces in XML use "namespace name". The 
> XML infoset REC uses both terms interchangeably and I'm sure 
> there may be others that do but where are both terms 
> normatively described and linked? 
> 
> 
> 
>