[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Sounds good in theory and in the REC, but the
insistence that URIs be dereferenceable makes
it inconsistent in practice.
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Elliotte Rusty Harold [mailto:elharo@metalab.unc.edu]
At 8:20 AM -0500 7/18/02, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>Are these statements consistent?
>
>"...XML 1.0/XML Namespaces/XML Infoset/XML Base can be integrated
>without an unreasonable amount of work and that the integration will
>result in something significantly more coherent than what we have
>now."
>
>"...the key lesson is that the lowest layers should deal only with
>syntax and should be semantically neutral."
Yes, they are. Neither Infoset nor namespaces actually assigns any
semantics to anything. Namespaces is sometimes used by local
processes to assign semantics to particular elements in particular
namespaces, but namespaces itself is just more syntax. The infoset
assigns only the most bare bones semantics. Essentially it just
defines another way of looking at XML. Only xml:base could arguably
be claimed to be at the semantic level, and even that is less
semantic than xml:lang.
|
