- From: David Carlisle <david@dcarlisle.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 23:02:40 +0100 (BST)
- To: connolly@w3.org
- CC: xml-uri@w3.org
> I think it's pretty intuitive to folks that have been > using the Web for a while that the dc > prefix is associated with the same thing that > the link points to, There has never been any evidence that there was an intention or desire that the namespace spec should generate a new class of XML document whose effective element names depend on context. The current namespace rec goes ro some lengths to ensure, via the literal comparison specification, that this does not happen. > I don't see any motivation > for it (other than the fact that there are > implementations that don't grok relative URI references > at all, which I don't find compelling.) The fact that existing software implements the namespace rec as written isn't the main reason for keeping it that way, it is because no one has demonstrated any reason for having element names depend on context. The only substantive argument raised against the current spec in this entire debate is that namespaces named with relative URI are not amenable to RDF assertions. The "literal base" proposal is a big shift from the current spec, in order to address this concern. I think it deserves a more thorough investigation than dismisal on the basis of "ugliness". David
Received on Tuesday, 20 June 2000 17:58:46 UTC