- From: Michael Mealling <michael@bailey.dscga.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 09:59:29 -0400
- To: "Clark C. Evans" <cce@clarkevans.com>
- Cc: John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>, Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, xml-uri@w3.org
On Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 03:29:28PM -0400, Clark C. Evans wrote: > On Sun, 4 Jun 100, John Cowan wrote: > > I agree that the relationship is one-one (and even onto), but I deny > > that it amounts to identity. Confounding the namespace with the document > > that describes it is a map-territory error. > > Right on. We are identifying a namespace resource! We are > not identifying a hypertext resources which describes a > given namespace -- this is a seperate problem entirely. > > It is unforunate that the current spec allows this; > I now agree that the xmlns attribval *should* be a URI, > (Tim has convinced me of this much)... However, I think > it should not be any old URI from any old scheme. Fellas, > we need a URI scheme specifically for namespaces. > Let's deprechiate duck quacking. I could go for this except that I would suggest a URN since it is required to have some of the qualities you want. The other qualities (injectiveness) comes from the URI space itself... Figure out a GUID type scheme (don't use MAC addresses) and register a URN 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 Monday, 5 June 2000 10:14:37 UTC