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

Re: more QName madness

• To: XML DEV <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: more QName madness
• From: "W. E. Perry" <wperry@f...>
• Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 09:12:06 -0500
• Organization: Fiduciary Automation
• References: <200211141400.JAA05596@m...>

John Cowan wrote:

> What is a universal addressing scheme, if not an a priori agreement embracing
> all likely counterparties and resulting in names that are globally unique?

This is *precisely* my point as to why QNames (i.e. in document content) are
otiose. A processing node can be expected to determine the provenance within the
internetwork addressing scheme of the documents is uses as source data, and from
that provenance to draw its own local inference of their relationship within its
locally-understood taxonomy.

Respectfully,

Walter Perry

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: more QName madness
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• References:
  • Re: more QName madness
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: more QName madness
• Next by Date: Re: more QName madness
• Previous by thread: Re: more QName madness
• Next by thread: Re: more QName madness
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread