Re: We need some function f

At 23:02 2000 06 21 +0100, David Carlisle wrote:
>Paul Grosso had written:
>> Having decided the above function that gives us nsn's, then
>> for the purposes of the "unique attribute" issue, we need a
>> function that takes two nsn's and two local names and returns
>> a boolean "unique/non-unique" answer. 
>
>string "character-for-character" equality as in the current rec.
>
>I say character for character, rather than byte for byte, as one
>issue that probably should be clarified in the ns rec is what to do
>about non ascii characters. 

Good point about the need for clarity on characters vrs bytes.

However, let me point out that "character-for-character" equality
neither answers my question nor is what is in the Namespace Rec
in terms of attribute uniqueness [1].

My question was about a function that takes 4 arguments, so 
"character-for-character" equality cannot be the answer (since
equality is a binary operation).  You probably mean to suggest
the logical conjunction of a pair of "character-for-character" 
equalities, that is, that both the pair of nsn's and the pair
of local names each match character-for-character (this is
close to what the Namespace Rec says at [1]; the discussion of
character-for-character is at [2]), but then you should say that.  
Imprecise wording and terminology use has gotten us into this 
mess in the first place and has lengthened this public discussion 
immensely, so I'd rather avoid it as much as possible.

paul

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/#uniqAttrs
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/#dt-identical

Received on Thursday, 22 June 2000 13:20:46 UTC