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

RDDL-based reification [Re: More namespaces fun!

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RDDL-based reification [Re: More namespaces fun!
• From: james anderson <james.anderson@s...>
• Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 10:28:09 +0200
• Organization: nil
• References: <r01050300-1015-E57B3843DA2C11D6BF780003937A08C2@[192.168.124.21]>
• Reply-to: james.anderson@s...

if the party who administers a namespace reifies it and elects RDDL as a means to document their belief, then what reason lies in remaining agnostic?

on the other hand, this reader wondered why the tag note failed to express an opinion on proper etiquette in situations where the administrator elects to not
reify the namespace.

"Simon St.Laurent" wrote:
> 
> Tim Bray writes:
> >Paul, you're about the fifth smart person to fall into this trip which
> >means it's a nasty one and RDDLers have to be careful.  There's no such
> >thing as a RDDL for a document.  There's a RDDL for a *namespace*.
> 
> Hmm... at this point I'm not convinced that *namespaces* per se exist.
> RDDL seems to me to describe usage rules for identifiers with a
> particular namespace label...
> 
> ...

• References:
  • Re: More namespaces fun!
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: ComputerWorld's 35 technologies
• Next by Date: Re: MSXML3SP3 vs illegal characters
• Previous by thread: Re: More namespaces fun!
• Next by thread: Articles: The Past, Present and Future of Web Services
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread