Re: stepping backward (one more step)

At 09:44 AM 6/5/00 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
>Graham Klyne wrote:
>
> > Is it really needed, or important, that the same equivalence rule is used
> > for both of these purposes?  Could we stick with string-equivalence for
> > distinguishing among peers, but "absolutized" name matching for linkage to
> > connotations?  Is it really harmful if some namespaces appear different at
> > a purely syntactic level, even if they actually refer to the same 
> connotations?
>
>Perhaps not.  But do you think it harmless if some namespaces appear the
>*same* at a purely syntactic level (both being named "foo") while referring
>to entirely different connotations?

No -- I think that harmful.

But, unless I've missed something (likely), that's not at issue.

If *a given document* contains the same relative URI in different places, 
can it refer to different connotations?  (Hmmm.. can one have an XML base 
applied to an element *within* an XML document?  If so, should that be 
regarded as a different document?)

I'd say that the same relative URI in different documents cannot, of 
itself, be regarded as the same for any purpose:  I think some additional 
information is needed to conclude thus.  (But I think the namespace spec 
can be read either way on this.  Section 2 indicates (to me) that only some 
namespace names can be regarded as delivering the desired properties of 
universality.

#g

------------
Graham Klyne
(GK@ACM.ORG)

Received on Monday, 5 June 2000 10:32:19 UTC