W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2005

RE: Significant W3C Confusion over Namespace Meaning and Policy

From: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 09:37:43 -0800
Message-ID: <830178CE7378FC40BC6F1DDADCFDD1D1027673B1@RED-MSG-31.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Elliotte Harold" <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>, "John Boyer" <JBoyer@PureEdge.com>
Cc: <paul.downey@bt.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>, <derhoermi@gmx.net>

And if we go with the assumption that the names within a namespace can change over time the question then becomes how to version namespaces. This isn't a theoretical problem, the addition of xml:base to the XML namespace after the fact caused problems for users of Microsoft technologies as I am sure the addition of xml:id will as well. 
The road to to success is always under construction.   


From: www-tag-request@w3.org on behalf of Elliotte Harold
Sent: Thu 2/10/2005 9:35 AM
To: John Boyer
Cc: paul.downey@bt.com; www-tag@w3.org; derhoermi@gmx.net
Subject: Re: Significant W3C Confusion over Namespace Meaning and Policy

Something has been bothering me about this assertion throughout the
threads. Why do you assume that collections are time invariant? In
general, they're not. For instance, the collection of all living people
on planet Earth or all episodes of "As the World Turns" changes on a
pretty regular basis.

Does adding a new item to a collection necessarily mean the collection
is now a different collection? And even if it is true in some
mathematical formalisms that collections are made up of a fixed and
unchanging set of members, is that the definition of collection used or
implied by Namespaces in XML?

Elliotte Rusty Harold  elharo@metalab.unc.edu
XML in a Nutshell 3rd Edition Just Published!
Received on Thursday, 10 February 2005 17:39:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:07 UTC