RE: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck)

> From: xml-uri-request@w3.org [mailto:xml-uri-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> David Carlisle
> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 11:31 AM
> To: abrahams@acm.org
> Cc: xml-uri@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck)
>
>
>
> > The problem I see is that if we follow (1), which at this point I more
> > or less agree with, then there's a nasty inconsistency between
> the namespace
> > spec and the definition of expanded names in the XPath spec.
>
> Since this whole debate arises because xpath and namespaces are in
> conflict I assume that one or the other will be changed to match
> once a final decision is taken.

In addition, my understanding is that the XPath REC and all *known*
implementations are in conflict as well. So it seems that  without having
interoperable and conforming implementations, XPath shouldn't have moved on
to the current REC status anyway (== it should be moved back to the status
of "candidate rec").

Received on Thursday, 1 June 2000 06:00:32 UTC