- From: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 09:37:43 -0800
- 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. -- PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM 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! http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xian3/ http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596007647/cafeaulaitA/ref=nosim
Received on Thursday, 10 February 2005 17:39:46 UTC