- From: <keshlam@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 10:56:40 -0400
- To: abrahams@acm.org
- cc: xml-uri@w3.org
>OPTION 4: TREAT NAMESPACE NAMES AS LITERALS FOR TESTING ATTRIBUTE UNIQUENESS, >BUT ABSOLUTIZE THEM FOR ALL OTHER PURPOSES. I don't think that advances us toward any of the conflicting goals. The folks who insist that names must be absolutized won't like the first part, the folks who reply that compare-after-absolutize makes relative names impossible for applications to reliably recognize won't like the second part, and I think both sides will consider this one inconsistant. >That option is in fact consistent with both the namespace spec Only because the namespace spec is sloppily written. (Which, I admit, is why we're debating this topic.) It isn't consistant with the intent of the spec, or with the intended uses. >Is the idea of replacing URI references as namespace names by some other form >of unique identifier off the table? I think the folks who are attempting to directly dereference relative namespace names -- the same ones who can't deal with the FORBID option -- would object that this too retroactively invalidates a large body of existing documents. And of course it breaks all the existing practice, including existing W3C specs such as XSLT. I like the idea of stepping out of this hole completely, but I think it's a year too late. ______________________________________ Joe Kesselman / IBM Research
Received on Tuesday, 23 May 2000 10:57:10 UTC