W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2001

RE: Purpose of Namespace

From: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 10:07:38 +0100
To: <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NDBBKJABLJNMLJELONBKMEPKDBAA.stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
I also think the latter is better readable.

As an alternative (I think) James Clark once proposed
to use a wording like
  {http://www.w3.com/standards/z39.50/}Authors
if a name with namespace needs to be mentioned.

But if the namespace is clear from the context, why bother...

//Stefan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2001 8:05 PM
> To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Purpose of Namespace
>
>
> I'd vote for the latter (i.e. just refer to the property without
> the namespace), but either is OK by me.
>
> Cheers,
> Geoff
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jason Crawford [mailto:ccjason@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2001 6:09 PM
> To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Purpose of Namespace
>
>
>
> <<
> So I'd say all that needs to be done is to get rid of the sentence that
> refers to concatenating the namespace URL with the local node name,
> and we are done with this issue.
> >>
> Sounds good.
>
> One other thing is that in places where it refers to a property with it's
> concatenated name, I'll have to change
> the reference to use a [URI, local name] pair.
>
> For example section 8.2.2...
>
>    In this example, the client requests the server to set the value of
>    the http://www.w3.com/standards/z39.50/Authors property, and to
>    remove the property http://www.w3.com/standards/z39.50/Copyright-
>    Owner.  Since the Copyright-Owner property could not be removed, no
>
> becomes
>
>    In this example, the client requests the server to set the value of
>    the [http://www.w3.com/standards/z39.50/,Authors] property, and to
>    remove the property [http://www.w3.com/standards/z39.50/,Copyright-
>    Owner].  Since the Copyright-Owner property could not be removed, no
>
> or perhaps
>
>    In this example, the client requests the server to set the value of
>    the Authors
> property, and to
>    remove the property      Copyright-
>    Owner.  Since the Copyright-Owner property could not be removed, no
>
> If you have a preference for this, let me know, otherwise I'll just figure
> it out.
>
> J.
>
> ------------------------------------------
> Phone: 914-784-7569,   ccjason@us.ibm.com
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 3 December 2001 04:07:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:59 GMT