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

On Thu, Jun 01, 2000 at 04:05:03PM +0100, David Carlisle wrote:
> > The viewpoint of 'namespace as differentiator only' is that it
> > only has to be unique within what scope? The document, the application
> > or the universe?
> 
> This is explained, in of all places, the namespace rec. 

I know its there. I'm asking your opinion based on how you read it....

> The purpose of xml namespaces is to define xml names such that they have scope
> "beyond their containing document" (presumably to the universe, given
> your three choices).

Then how do you reconcile relative URIs with that requirement?

> This is accomplished by giving the namespace a name which is a URI uri
> reference and you can make sure the name is unique by using an
> absolute URI of a resource you control. (but using the URI as the
> namespace name does not mean that the resource _is_ the namespace)

Right... but can the resource be one of many possible _representations_ of
the namespace? 

-MM

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Mealling	|      Vote Libertarian!       | www.rwhois.net/michael
Sr. Research Engineer   |   www.ga.lp.org/gwinnett     | ICQ#:         14198821
Network Solutions	|          www.lp.org          |  michaelm@netsol.com

Received on Thursday, 1 June 2000 11:09:30 UTC