Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
 > Yep. Namespaces do work. As I said: a URI is just a name. A namespace name > is a URI. It all works. Saying a namespace name is a URI is a) inaccurate as it is a URI reference, and b) not the same as saying a namespace is a resource, don't conflate the name with the thing. The URI reference part is important as http://www.example.com/a.html#a http://www.example.com/a.html#b both refer to the same resource, but to different fragment identifiers within some enity of some mime type returned for that resource. Since both can be namespace names, I fail to see how you can have a namepace==resource model. At best you can have a namespace ==resource+fragmentid model, but even that breaks down due to examples as given where the namespace name identifies a completely unrelated resource. But part of that working is accepting the possibility that a given string can refer to one thing if used as a namespace name and another if used as a URI. You've given some reasonable reasons why some of my examples might be a bad idea to use in practice (although I'd disagree with some of your arguments they are reasonable) but that is on the same level as saying that designing a vocabulary in which all the identifiers are strings of a's is of questionable merit. <a> <aa aa="1"> <aaaa/> </aa> </a> You can ask whether it's a good design, but it is clearly well formed XML. The same is true of <x:x xmlns:x="data:,x"/> You may think it's a bad namespace name (actually I've used it quite a lot in XSLT stylesheets once my previous preferred namespace of "x" was deprecated.) But it is clearly a conforming document and means that (unless you get the current collection of XML related specifications all changed) any attempt to give a formal model for what lies behind URI and namespace references has to take this in to account. You can't just ignore this and assert without any reference to any part of any specification that it is abuse, so out of scope for your model. Well you can if you wish, but then you are just modelling some subset of Namespace conforming documents that you wish to use, and ignoring the larger collection of documents that use features that are allowed according to the specification but with which you personally disagree. David _____________________________________________________________________ This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service. 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
