W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > April 2009

RE: Pointer Methods in RDF

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:17:56 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D3020F15ADF8@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <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 John Cowan
> Sent: Monday, 2009 March 30 15:17
> To: Glenn Marcy
> Cc: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Pointer Methods in RDF
> Glenn Marcy scripsit:
> > Perhaps I am missing something, but given the phrase in the 
> constraint
> > itself of "except as defined by later specifications" isn't Pointer
> > Methods in RDF an example of just the sort of specifications that we
> > reserve these things for?  Or do we really expect to eventually need
> > every token that begins with "[xX][mM][lL]" for just the set of core
> > XML specifications?
> No, but we probably don't want to open the floodgates either.

I lean toward saying that they shouldn't use such names, but 
I don't know what the response will be.  It's possible--in fact, 
almost a certainty--that there are uses of names starting with 
xml out there, so railing against such may be useless.

The problem is that "are reserved" isn't operational.  It's
not like XML parsers complain about it, so the best we can
really say is that "if in the future we decide to give 
special meaning to such a name that conflicts with what
you want it to mean, too bad", but in fact it's unlikely we'll 
ever do anything with an element named "ptr:XMLNamespace".

Per the other case that just came up, it's less out of the
question that we might want to use xml-model some day.

We should definitely discuss this next Wednesday.

Received on Friday, 3 April 2009 14:19:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:40 UTC