Re: Minimum required of a system called "Namespaces in XML"

keshlam@us.ibm.com wrote:

> >Any revision of the namespace spec should make it absolutely clear what is
> expected of >a namespace name in terms of what it identifies or might
> identify and why URI references >are used for this purpose.
>
> Half-agree: Any revision should make clear the rationalle of why URI
> references (or, in the Forbid case, URI+)  was chosen. But the answer to
> "what does it identify" is, as far as the Namespace spec itself is
> concerned, "a point in URI space". Whether anything can be retrieved by
> accessing that point it out of scope for this spec.

I wonder.   Here's something I had in a previous message, in the spirit of
"clarify, don't overthrow".  Several people thought it was a good restatement
of the literal position, which is of course the status quo.  What do you
think?

[[I would propose that we eliminate a lot of the confusion
surrounding namespaces by replacing the definition of a
namespace name by the following:

"The attribute's value is the namespace name identifying the
namespace.   It must have the form of a URI reference,
although for the purposes of this specification the
namespace name is treated as an uninterpreted character
string.   Other specifications and applications may choose
to attach their own interpretations to the namespace name
and to place additional requirements on its form or
interpretation.  (URI references are used in this context
because they allow such additional interpretations.)

Namespace names should be chosen so as to be unique.   That
is, the author of a namespace should choose a namespace name
that one can assume with some confidence will not be used by
anyone else to denote a different namespace."]]

Paul Abrahams

Received on Tuesday, 13 June 2000 18:27:13 UTC