- From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 20:39:12 -0700
- To: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>, David Brownell <db@argon.Eng.Sun.COM>
- Cc: xml-names-issues@w3.org
At 11:32 AM 8/17/98 +0700, James Clark wrote: >I would actually go further and not provide productions for the >namespace declarations at all: > >In my view, the right processing model for the namespace draft is that >there's a two-stage process: The argument is persuasive but I don't think we should get into micromanaging the processing model. Reason is that in may apps you're going to be in SAX-land or equivalent and there will be no tree normaliation going on. I think the grammar, as amended due to the input here, is quite clear. >The spec needs to say how they are compared (only for the purposes of >6.4 as far as I can see). It could just say you compare the strings >character for character. The URN spec (RFC 2141) specifies lexical >equivalence for URNs: Ouch; these are URIs, not URNs. Can we get away with weasel words simply saying that they have to be lexically equivalent per the governing spec? I've tried this. Dan? -Tim
Received on Thursday, 10 September 1998 23:38:31 UTC