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

RE: The use of XML syntax in XML Query

• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: The use of XML syntax in XML Query
• From: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@g...>
• Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 11:38:05 +0100
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <004901c19570$a1a0a4a0$0100007f@b...>

David,

> From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@b...]
> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 11:14 PM
> To: 'Jonathan Robie'; 'Julian Reschke'; 'Evan Lenz'; 'David Carlisle'
> Cc: xml-dev@l...
> Subject: RE:  The use of XML syntax in XML Query
>
>
> The terms namespace URI and namespace name are equivalent.  I did some
> research on this a little while ago.  Turns out that there was an
> effort to
> unify these terms to namespace name, but it didn't really happen.
>  I believe
> namespace name is the correct term as per xml namespace and xpath.
> Personally, I prefer namespace name rather than namespace URI as
> URI is the
> data type.  I like to refer to things by names (even namespace
> names) rather
> than by value.

So do I. But the datatype is NOT URI, it's a URI reference.

>  ...
>
> Imagine if we had let namespaces contain relative URIs, then we'd have to

They are allowed, just "deprecated" by a separate note.

> change all of our terminology to namespace URI references.  And then if we

It *is* a URI reference. Just because the W3C later decided that relative
URI references shouldn't be used doesn't make every legal namespace name a
URI.

For instance, the namespace name "http://greenbytes.com#reference" is
perfectly ok (it's not relative), yet it's a URI reference, not a URI. Thus
(as you said), I think it's wrong to talk about the "namespace URI". It may
not be a URI.


Regards, Julian

• Prev by Date: Unloading XML file from DOM
• Next by Date: Re: XSLT and XQuery
• Previous by thread: RE: The use of XML syntax in XML Query
• Next by thread: XQuery Update Proposal
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread