W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-uri@w3.org > May 2000

Re: Call the question!

From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 19:13:22 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <200005221813.TAA03898@nag.co.uk>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:42 UTC