On 8/16/05, David Powell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The reason for there > being two classes of extensions was to reduce this burden, so that > implementations based on RDBMS, RDF, or whatever can process a common > class of unknown extensions generically. The burden of requiring the > lang and base context to be preserved in a legacy CMS database along > with each extension, on the off-chance that they might be significant > seemed to great.
Um, this makes no sense to me. It seems smart to preserve the entry from which an extension came. If the extension has no base URI itself, the one from the entry applies, so you can still find it if you think you need it later. Robert Sayre
