- From: Julian Reschke <reschke@medicaldataservice.de>
- Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 21:46:32 +0200
- To: <keshlam@us.ibm.com>, "Julian Reschke" <reschke@muenster.de>
- Cc: "Clark C. Evans" <cce@clarkevans.com>, <xml-uri@w3.org>
Joe Kesselman wrote: > >I think one issue with your proposal is that the namespace in general is > an > >infinite set of names. > > Sorry, but that is exactly what the namespace spec defines. A namespace OK, I agree. I wasn't making my point very clear. > defines a _space_ which names can be drawn from, not the content of that > space, its meaning or anything else. If you want a finite dictionary, or > semantic bindings, or anything else constraining what the names > are and how > they're interpreted, you need to build some higher-level concept on top of > Namespaces. > > Namespaces really are pretty close to being pure syntax. Adding semantics > to them is someone else's problem, and is NOT part of the question > currently on the table. I agree again. However it seems that others disagree.
Received on Thursday, 8 June 2000 15:46:32 UTC