[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: "David Brownell" <david-b@pacbell.net>
- To: "John Robert Gardner" <jrgardn@emory.edu>, "David Carlisle" <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 13:51:22 +0200
> > > We have documented this since Feb '98, when XML 1.0 became
> > > a recommendation despite the lack of namespace support:
> > > --http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/NOTE-webarch-extlang-19980210#Evolving
> >
> > One would have assumed though that a later REC would supersede any
> > comments in an early NOTE. The description of namespace that you quote
Assume? More than that. Documents labeled "NOTE" were supposed to
have exactly zero formal standing with respect to web standards.
> In a syntactic, but not semantic sense. This line of argument presumes no
> judicatory relevance in dissenting opinions by Supreme Court Justices.
Sorry, a NOTE is _at best_ something at the level of a friend-of-the-court
brief (more typically it's historical); it's a REC which has formal
standing.
In this case, it's clear that the REC does not require namespace URLs to
point at anything whatsoever -- or be usable for any purpose beyond
that of any other resource "identifier". (Resources can be hypothetical,
and so on, yet still need identifiers.)
- Dave
***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@xml.org&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
***************************************************************************
|
