- From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 19:13:22 +0100 (BST)
- To: jcowan@reutershealth.com
- CC: xml-uri@w3.org
> It might. In particular, the idea of "two kinds of namespace names" > was NOT discussed to death on xml-core-wg and xml-plenary. To restate: 1) Well I would be perfectly happy with that proposal as it appears (from my perspective) to be identical to the status quo. For all uses as a namespace name the two kinds of namespace name would be treated the same, as literal strings, wouldn't they? 1a) In this case the interpretation of ./schema would change from the current position and documents using that namespace string would change their interpretation. So I would be a lot less happy with this change (although from a purely selfish perspective it wouldn't break any of my documents, as, as it happens if I use a relative URI reference as a namespace name I just use a simple name with no /) David
Received on Monday, 22 May 2000 14:14:39 UTC