[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
I wrote:
> > Everyone agrees that a namespace is a collection of related
> > names, whether they be for elements or attributes.
Joe English wrote:
> I most emphatically do *not* agree with this [*].
>
> An XML namespace as defined by "Namespaces in XML" is *not* a
> collection of related names in any meaningful sense.
Well, then, why is the definition of an XML namespace
"a collection of names, identified by a URI reference
[RFC2396], which are used in XML documents as element
types and attribute names"? Is the objection to the
word "related"? What if I define that to mean related
only in the sense of sharing a URI reference identifier,
not in the sense of sharing any kind of semantic meaning
or intended use?
> I think the whole problem
> goes away once we dispose of the notion that "being
> in a namespace" has any more semantic import than,
> say, "starts with a vowel".
If we could say that names currently thought of as being
in no namespace can be treated equivalently as being in a
namespace identified by, say, the empty URI reference "",
then I'd be happy. The problem comes when these no-namespace
names are treated as somehow connected with their containers in
a less-than-completely-consistent way.
--
Kian-Tat Lim, ktl@ktlim.com, UTF-7: +Z5de+pBU-
|
