RE: xptr-framework clarification please.

Henry's recollection matches mine. The group did not want to allow
other namespace bindings to exist by default, since that would
lead to incompatible implementations where pointers produced
by tools from one vendor would not work on tools from other
vendors.

Ron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-xml-linking-comments-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-xml-linking-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> Henry S. Thompson
> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 2:05 AM
> To: Ross Lamont
> Cc: www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Re: xptr-framework clarification please.
> 
> 
> 
> Ross Lamont <rlamont@componentcorp.com> writes:
> 
> > Hello all,
> >
> > Section 3.4 of the current recommendation states:
> >
> > "The initial namespace binding context prior to evaluation 
> of the first 
> > pointer part consists of a single entry:  the xml prefix..."
> >
> > Noting the lack of the words "must" etc, my reading of this 
> is that it is 
> > permissible for a particular processsor to include _more_ 
> than this single 
> > entry, if it so desires.
> >
> > Is this a correct interpretation?
> 
> That was not the WG's intention, in my opinion.  I'll treat this as an
> editorial erratum, to include "must".
> 
> ht
> -- 
>   Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, 
> University of Edinburgh
>                       Half-time member of W3C Team
>      2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 
> 131 650-4440
> 	    Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
> 		     URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
>  [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without 
> it is forged spam]
>

Received on Thursday, 21 August 2003 22:02:45 UTC