[sc34wg3] CTM - prefix declaration

[Robert Barta]

On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 07:02:14PM +0100, Lars Heuer wrote:
> The Kyoto proposal *seems* to enforce that a prefix may either be used
> exclusively as subject identifier or as subject locator:

That's not good, because it subtly opens two namespaces.

--

The

  http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc34/open/0975.htm

also has this:

> Binding the same prefix to different IRIs in the same CTM document
> is an error.

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.

\rho