- From: Andrew Layman <andrewl@microsoft.com>
- To: "'John Cowan'" <cowan@locke.ccil.org>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 11:30:53 -0700
My apologies. I should absolutely have written "three" -- I was thinking of
the "other two."
The point of the wording was to respect that multiple URIs may reference the
same resource, and that the namespaces specification would not attempt to
define any equality of resources, merely saying that two namespace URIs are
identical if their characters are, and that if the characters are not
identical then all bets are off -- the namespace identified may or may not
be the same. Two distiinct URIs might in fact identify the same namespace,
but within the facilities of the namespaces specification they would not be
known to do so.
I notice that you sent this to me privately. I would not mind if you posted
this.
-----Original Message-----
From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan@locke.ccil.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 1999 11:23 AM
To: Andrew Layman
Subject: Re: Just require URLs
On xml-dev you wrote:
> [...] as one of the two editors
The specification mentions three editors: Bray, Hollander, Layman.
> of the specification I can speak for my intent in the wording of the
> specification: The URI identifies the namespace.
As editor, then, what was your intention in this wording:
# URI references which identify namespaces are considered identical
# when they are exactly the same character-for-character.
Does "when" mean merely "if" or does it mean "if and only if"?
In other words, could two URI references identify the same namespace
even if they are not "exactly the same character-for-character",
or do differently spelled URI references always identify different
namespaces?
And if the former, how are we to interpret relative URLs in
namespace declarations?
I am not asking to be contentious, but out of a sincere and
well-motivated desire to know these things.
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org
You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn.
You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn.
Clear all so! 'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)
