Lists Home |
Date Index |
"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote:
> Namespaces are system flags to XML processors.
> They don't belong in the core. Because names
> of resources and names of locations of resources
> in the system are conflated, you can't put them
> in the core without tieing them directly to
> the system. That violated platform independence.
"names of resources and names of locations of resources" - even
conflated - concern things which are independant of the one, single
property intrinsic to namespaces: the capacity to disambiguating names.
which, i would trust, remains part of the "core". establishing identity
with respect to
<asdf xmlns='12345' />
<abcd:asdf xmlns:abcd='12345' />
is no different than doing so with respect to
<!ENTITY % qwer 'asdf'>
<!ELEMENT %qwer; EMPTY >
none of which has to do with either the names of resources or the names
of locations of resources.
> Not all schemas are equal. This is a flaw
> in your ideas. Namespaces with HTTP in the
> definition are considered resolvable.
which has nothing to do with the identity of the names in the respective namespace.
> is the flaw in TimBL's idea. As to whether
> DTDs belong in the core, without them, the
> mess of lackadasical well-formedness gets
> worse. We have years of solid practical
> experience with DTDs in the core. No valid
> reason to remove them has been presented.