> So if "the bindings of names to tags is the tag namespace", that means that a set of bindings of names to symbols is a symbol namespace! No, that does not fo

> So if "the bindings of names to tags is the tag namespace", that means that a set of bindings of names to symbols is a symbol namespace! No, that does not follow. Even if one were to admit the parallel construct here, the result would be "the symbol namespace" which is clearly nonsense. Neither "tag namespace" nor "symbol namespace" is a term of art, so here we are in the domain of natural language, and natural language is irregular and ambiguous. In natural language usage, a "namespace for symbols" is one where symbols are the domain, not the range. In particular, the most common usage is to distinguish between Lisp-1 and Lisp-2, where the former has a single namespace for symbols and the latter has at least two, one for values and one for functions.