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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] Re: Why REST was Re: [xml-dev] URIs are simply names

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

> Yep. Namespaces do work. As I said: a URI is just a name. A namespace name
> is a URI. It all works.

Saying a namespace name is a URI is a) inaccurate as it is a URI
reference, and b) not the same as saying a namespace is a resource,
don't conflate the name with the thing.

The URI reference part is important as 
both refer to the same resource, but to different fragment identifiers
within some enity of some mime type returned for that resource. Since
both can be namespace names, I fail to see
how you can have a namepace==resource model. At best you can have a
namespace ==resource+fragmentid model, but even that breaks down
due to examples as given where the namespace name identifies a
completely unrelated resource.

But part of that working is accepting the possibility that a given
string can refer to one thing if used as a namespace name and another if
used as a URI. You've given some reasonable reasons why some of my
examples might be a bad idea to use in practice (although I'd disagree
with some of your arguments they are reasonable) but that is on the same
level as saying that designing a vocabulary in which all the identifiers
are strings of a's is of questionable merit.

  <aa aa="1">

You can ask whether it's a good design, but it is clearly well formed

The same is true of
<x:x xmlns:x="data:,x"/>
You may think it's a bad namespace name (actually I've used it quite a
lot in XSLT stylesheets once my previous preferred namespace of "x"
was deprecated.) But it is clearly a conforming document and means
that (unless you get the current collection of XML related
specifications all changed) any attempt to give a formal model for what
lies behind URI and namespace references has to take this in to account.
You can't just ignore this and assert without any reference to any part
of any specification that it is abuse, so out of scope for your model.
Well you can if you wish, but then you are just modelling some subset
of Namespace conforming documents that you wish to use, and ignoring
the larger collection of documents that use features that are allowed
according to the specification but with which you personally disagree.


This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet
delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further
information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call
Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service.


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

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