Lists Home |
Date Index |
i rephrase my question.
the normative aspects of namespaces have to do with name identity.
the normative aspects of namespaces have nothing to do with resolution.
how do reasons which justify excluding resolution issues from the core
come to exclude normative aspects of namespaces from the core?
"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote:
> No, I'm not rejecting them in their entirety. They
> are too useful. I am saying they don't belong in the
> core given definitions that leave their 'resolvability'
> an unpredictable property.
which definitions? do the definitions at issue specify anything more or
less than comparability? is that anything different than
REC-xml-20001006.html does in the definition of "match" as it applies to
strings and names?
> That's it. That's all.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: james anderson [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> is the goal, to avoid that with which namespaces are conflated, laudable
> though it is, adequate reason to reject them in their entirety?