[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> I still don't see the point.
Fair 'nuff.
> I don't give a tinker's cuss if someone has registered "foo"
> as a prefix, only
> that when I see foo:bar, I know it really means "a purchase
> order".
And that's not the problem I'm trying to solve.
My aim is more modest in function, if not impact: to eliminate namespace
prefix declarations in documents, and thereby eliminate namespace scope and
namespace forwarding issues. To accomplish this, it seeks to make the
prefix + local name the one and only true universal name, through the
mechanism of a vetted registry. The prefix + local name become a bound,
inseparable entity when parsed.
Does it make the meaning of that universal name unique? No. People could
still write schemas and such that associate different definitions to the
same universal name. That is still a problem, but a debatable one. "He said
he'll murder the murder of crows that crows outside his bedroom window each
morning" uses different identifiers to mean different things. Which thing it
means depends on context.
Is it really desirable to have a single set of associations, maintained
officially, for each universal name? What about names associated with
wildcard declarations?: Can they possibly 'mean' just one thing?
I wasn't trying to address those questions... too deep for me.
|
