- From: David Carlisle <david@dcarlisle.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 17:47:10 +0100 (BST)
- To: connolly@w3.org
- CC: XML-uri@w3.org
> Argument by assertion is no fun... Here's the > argument by which I conclude that it's a typo: there does seem to be some consensus that relative URIs got let in by mistake when fragment ids were allowed (which is due no doubt to the appalling terminology in the RFC which doesn't give a name to the most specific identifier (absolute URI + fragment id) and calls something "URI reference" when it isn't a reference to a URI, it's not surprising these things happen. However it isn't a typo that the resource identified by the namespace name as a URI reference is not the namespace. > I disagree. If you have any justification for this claim, > I'm interested to see it. Having posted I don't know how many messages to this list giving such justification I don't know what else I can say. > That's what "identifier" and "name" mean, no? no You use the URI of a resource to name your namespace so almost always the resource identified by the namespace name is not the namespace. > Hang on... do you mean URI reference, I mean URI reference. That is what the REC says. Even if you argue that it wasn't supposed to say that even you can't argue that the REC currently says that a namespace name is a URI reference. It does not say the namespace name is a URI obtained by combining a URI reference with a base. > URI references denote URIs They are also used as namespace names. > I agree that namespace processing per se is done just with namespace > names, and that the namespaces themselves are formally > irrelevant at that level It is that level which is the subject of this list. Schema validation while a good thing is a topic for another day. David
Received on Thursday, 8 June 2000 12:44:28 UTC