- From: Paul W. Abrahams <abrahams@valinet.com>
- Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 22:33:48 -0400
- To: David Carlisle <david@dcarlisle.demon.co.uk>
- CC: timbl@w3.org, xml-uri@w3.org
David Carlisle wrote: > If you have the underlying assumption > that dereferencing the namespace name will return something relevant > to the namespace then you will find most namespace processing strange > and or broken. I originally operated under that assumption because of the quack principle: since looking at the resource located by a URI yields something useful in most contexts, I expected it to yield something useful in this context. But I see now that the assumption is ultimately unworkable. When the namespace spec was written, I assume, URI references seemed a convenient and harmless choice for the namespace name. It's too bad that the namespace spec didn't originally propose using meaningless unique serial numbers instead. Whether or not that proposal was approved, all of these disputes would have been hashed out before the spec was issued. Paul Abrahams
Received on Sunday, 4 June 2000 23:34:33 UTC