W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > February 2007

RE: XML resource identifiers - time to rethink?

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:13:06 -0500
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D30206560A88@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: "public-xml-core-wg" <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> Philippe Le Hegaret
> Sent: Tuesday, 2007 February 13 14:50
> To: Henry S. Thompson
> Cc: public-xml-core-wg
> Subject: Re: XML resource identifiers - time to rethink?
> 
> On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 15:15 +0000, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
> > Philippe le Hegaret is checking with Ian Jacobs to see 
> > what our options are if we decided we wanted to rapidly
> > publish a definition of XRIs separately, and then put normative
> > references to that definition in xml:base 2e and XLink 1.1, 
> > without resetting their Process state if at all possible.
> 
> Talked to Ian and here is his opinion: don't publish the 
> definition in a
> non-TR document (it's not normative, no guarantees, etc.). His
> preference is to duplicate the definition (pointing out in 
> each one that they'll be kept aligned).

I don't see duplicating information as a solution.

It still seems easiest and best to me to write an RFC
defining the term.  It's not a W3C-only term, it's easy
to write an RFC, and we often refer normatively to RFCs.

paul
Received on Tuesday, 13 February 2007 21:14:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:37 UTC