RE: draft CURIE review

I sent in our review at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2008JulSep/0017

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: Monday, 2008 August 18 11:08
> To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: 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
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 21 August 2008 20:35:11 UTC