[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• From: Kian-Tat Lim <ktl@k...>
• Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 12:37:01 -0700
• References: <3D4AC377.B49E7BB4@k...> <200208021640.g72Ge3rR069573@c...> <200208021922.g72JM9307382@d...>
• Reply-to: ktl@k...

I wrote:
> > Everyone agrees that a namespace is a collection of related
> > names, whether they be for elements or attributes.

Joe English wrote:
> I most emphatically do *not* agree with this [*].
> 
> An XML namespace as defined by "Namespaces in XML" is *not* a
> collection of related names in any meaningful sense.

Well, then, why is the definition of an XML namespace
"a collection of names, identified by a URI reference
[RFC2396], which are used in XML documents as element
types and attribute names"?  Is the objection to the
word "related"?  What if I define that to mean related
only in the sense of sharing a URI reference identifier,
not in the sense of sharing any kind of semantic meaning
or intended use?

> I think the whole problem
> goes away once we dispose of the notion that "being
> in a namespace" has any more semantic import than,
> say, "starts with a vowel".

If we could say that names currently thought of as being
in no namespace can be treated equivalently as being in a
namespace identified by, say, the empty URI reference "",
then I'd be happy.  The problem comes when these no-namespace
names are treated as somehow connected with their containers in
a less-than-completely-consistent way.

-- 
Kian-Tat Lim, ktl@k..., UTF-7: +Z5de+pBU-

• References:
  • Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
    • From: Kian-Tat Lim <ktl@k...>
  • Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
    • From: Mike Brown <mike@s...>
  • Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
    • From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Default namespaces are *evil*! (RE: Global/Local attributes)
• Next by Date: Re: Default namespaces are *evil*! (RE: Global/Local attributes)
• Previous by thread: Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• Next by thread: Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread