- 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
> 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