OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



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

[ 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


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS