RE: draft CURIE review

If I don't get any comments soon, I plan to send in this review.

I plan to sign it as coming from the XML Core WG.  If anyone
does not feel this is a reasonable representation of the WG's
view (which, admittedly, includes "disagreement among the WG 
members"), speak now.

paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Grosso, Paul
> Sent: Wednesday, 2008 August 13 11:39
> To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: draft CURIE review
> 
> 
> draft review--please comment.
> 
> paul
> 
> --------------------------
> 
> Various members of the XML Core WG have reviewed the
> CURIE specification at several stages of development, 
> and the WG has discussed CURIEs among themselves 
> several times.
> 
> There is disagreement among the WG members about the
> value of CURIEs.  While some members don't object
> to them as long as it isn't claimed that a CURIE
> is a namespace, others fear the similarity with
> QNames will be confusing at best and possibly
> problematic for certain applications and tools,
> and several of us think CURIEs are a bad idea.
> 
> At this time, while most of the XML Core WG would
> rather not have CURIEs continue to be proposed and
> used, we have given up spending energy fighting
> what seems to be a losing cause.
> 
> Paul Grosso
> for the XML Core WG
> 
> 
>