[sc34wg3] CTM - prefix declaration

[Robert Barta]

On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 11:53:10PM +1300, Murray Altheim wrote:
> > Can someone educate me, why a
> > 
> >   %prefix a http://example
> >   %prefix b http://example
> > 
> > should be harmful? CTM treats these prefixes NON-SEMANTICALLY (bad,
> > but so be it), so it treats them in the same way as XML namespaces.

Sorry, my comment within the ()'s is digressive for this
argument. Treating namespaces (or prefixes) under an _ontologic_
interpretation is a completely different issue.

> There's no semantic binding in the namespace declaration itself, as
> the bindings only arrive with tokens within the namespace. And there
> can be no harm in having multiple prefixes for the same namespace
> given that the prefixes aren't part of the semantics, they're part
> of the document syntax.

Yes, that is the real point I wanted to make. I also cannot see
something wrong/bad/evil there.

\rho