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

Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck)

From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 22:15:35 -0400
Message-Id: <200005300213.WAA21024@hesketh.net>
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
>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
>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
>the namespace spec itself.  XPath is an instance but  not the only one.
>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
Received on Monday, 29 May 2000 22:13:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:13:59 UTC