[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com>
- To: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
- 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@fourthought.com +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
|
