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

Re: Irony heaped on irony

From: <keshlam@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 09:40:53 -0400
To: John Aldridge <john.aldridge@informatix.co.uk>
cc: "David Brownell" <david-b@pacbell.net>, xml-dev@xml.org, xml-uri@w3.org
Message-ID: <852568EB.004B2399.00@D51MTA03.pok.ibm.com>
> But this whole debate is not about what "XML Namespaces" says (that's
>largely uncontentious),

... It may not be. I think I'm starting to understand TBL's argument that
there may be value in saying that the Namespace URI, as declared, is not
"the name" per se, but is a reference to a point in URI space which
represents the namespace's identity. That may actually answer my "show me
how to make relative names make sense" objection... they may not be
_useful_, but there's a coherent way to interpret them.

It is still unclear that this interpretation really works, or that it's
worth the additional cycles and storage needed to implement it. But at
least I begin to see where the assumptions diverge.

Joe Kesselman  / IBM Research
Received on Friday, 26 May 2000 09:41:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:13:58 UTC