[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com
> [mailto:uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com]
>
> I also agree 100%, and would love to see this clarification
> in the namespace
> rec. However, I don't think it will eliminate the whole
> "deref" issue with
> namespaces. After all, the current spec uses weasel words
Right on both counts. The Namespaces rec is certainly playing games
(along the lines of you can look, but you can't touch). And yes, calling
a namespace name that is syntactically a URI a string won't make a blind
bit of difference to XML as practised.
However, when you think about it, such a clarification would just junk
any pretence of systems architecture regarding XML Namespaces. We'd be
building machinery that by admission relies a coincidence. Now I don't
think architecture of any kind should rely on a coincidence, however
happy. But the clarification would be an honest admission of guilt at
least.
Bill de hÓra
..
Propylon
www.propylon.com
|
