- From: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>
- Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 07:51:33 -0400 (EDT)
- To: "John Robert Gardner" <jrgardn@emory.edu>, "David Carlisle" <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Cc: <connolly@w3.org>, <xml-dev@xml.org>, <xml-uri@w3.org>
> > > We have documented this since Feb '98, when XML 1.0 became > > > a recommendation despite the lack of namespace support: > > > --http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/NOTE-webarch-extlang-19980210#Evolving > > > > One would have assumed though that a later REC would supersede any > > comments in an early NOTE. The description of namespace that you quote Assume? More than that. Documents labeled "NOTE" were supposed to have exactly zero formal standing with respect to web standards. > In a syntactic, but not semantic sense. This line of argument presumes no > judicatory relevance in dissenting opinions by Supreme Court Justices. Sorry, a NOTE is _at best_ something at the level of a friend-of-the-court brief (more typically it's historical); it's a REC which has formal standing. In this case, it's clear that the REC does not require namespace URLs to point at anything whatsoever -- or be usable for any purpose beyond that of any other resource "identifier". (Resources can be hypothetical, and so on, yet still need identifiers.) - Dave
Received on Sunday, 21 May 2000 09:06:22 UTC