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

Re: Content negotation in namespace URI resolution was RE: Treaty ofWula

• From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>
• To: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>
• Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 10:18:46 -0700 (MST)

> "Usage of relativeURIs as namespace names
> while conformant to the namespace rec, results in such document having no
> defined Infoset (i.e. it is not Infoset conformant)."
>
> The namespace REC hasn't been changed. See the current Infoset draft for
> language describing the deprecation of relativeURIs as namespace names.

Thanks.  That'll teach me to go back and re-read the thread.  However, I
still think the passage I quoted from the XML NS 1.0 rec goes against the
grain of the the relative URI discouragement in the Infoset draft.

> > What I would like to be hashed out is a structure for defining
> > the semantics
> > one attaches to namespaces.
>
> 	e.g. RDF Schema?

Ha ha.  I love it!  Of course I think your particulat content negotiation
ideas really only work if this expedient is taken.

Definitely food for thought.


-- 
Uche Ogbuji                               Principal Consultant
uche.ogbuji@f...               +1 303 583 9900 x 101
Fourthought, Inc.                         http://Fourthought.com
4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA
Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python

• Follow-Ups:
  • Large Scale XML Parsing
    • From: bigbadz <bigbadz@t...>

• Prev by Date: Semantic Web Hackings
• Next by Date: Re: XML syntax for XPath?
• Previous by thread: Semantic Web Hackings
• Next by thread: Large Scale XML Parsing
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread