- From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 22:15:35 -0400
- To: xml-uri@w3.org
At 10:02 PM 5/29/00 -0400, Paul W. Abrahams wrote: >Almost. The problem I see is that if we follow (1), which at this point I more >or less agree with, then there's a nasty inconsistency between the namespace >spec and the definition of expanded names in the XPath spec. The working group >you speak of would have to look at, and propose revisions to, all specs that >are impacted by the string-literal interpretation of namespace names, not just >the namespace spec itself. XPath is an instance but not the only one. XBase >is another. I'd leave XPath as is, claiming that it's a layer built _on top of_ Namespaces in XML and can therefore do as it pleases. The W3C might also want to reopen XPath if this seems grossly inconsistent, but that's them. XBase has the advantage of still being in development, with an active Working Group, so let them figure out how this works... Simon St.Laurent XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed. Building XML Applications Inside XML DTDs: Scientific and Technical Cookies / Sharing Bandwidth http://www.simonstl.com
Received on Monday, 29 May 2000 22:13:35 UTC