[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> My
> point, though, was that the ostensible reason for which we
> are exploring a
> namespacing scheme is our hope of disambiguating names so
> that processors may
> handle instance names and the content associate with them in
> a sensible and
> appropriate way.
I think your point and my point are related, but different. I'm arguing for
a simpler namespace mechanism, and I think you're arguing for a better one.
> Try as you might you
> cannot take the
> semantics--in the form of the differing processing which
> different syntactic
> labels will signal--out of any such registry.
Maybe this is our argument: I say you can build a registry with entries
meaning:
1) I am unique name
2) I am registered to some entity
What I can't do is prevent semantics from being associated with those
entities. But that is not the purpose, and is outside the scope of the
registry.
As a matter of fact, you could do away with a registry altogether, and just
have some black box authority that tells you either "that prefix is unique;
you may own it" or "that string is not prefix; try again". Want to know
what prefixes are registered? Tough! You'll just have to guess. I do it for
web site registrations every day.
> Simply
> understood, such a registry
> is a shorthand for the semantics which will be elaborated
> from processing to be
> chosen on the basis of the syntax registered.
You can continue to insist on that, but I will continue for now to
respectfully disagree. Try me again in a few months when I'm grey and wiser
and I might be more receptive.
|
