W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > February 2006

Re: Comments on URIs for W3C Namespaces

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 21:01:59 -0600
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: www-archive@w3.org, w3t-comm@w3.org
Message-Id: <1138762919.8274.170.camel@jebediah>
On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 02:35 +0100, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> Hi,
>   Regarding http://www.w3.org/2005/07/13-nsuri it's sad to see the
> document has not been checked for broken links before publication,
> there are broken fragments that should be fixed.

I found one and fixed it. Thanks for the report.

> The entire section 4 does not make sense to me, I don't understand
> what it could mean for a namespace to "change"; this was discussed
> to quite some extend on the www-tag mailing list, it's odd to see
> this still in the document. I also do not understand the relation-
> ship between namespace names and validity of content or processing
> semantics as implied by some examples.

This text is based on discussion with TimBL and was shared with the TAG
as well [1] (although I don't recall receiving feedback from them).

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2005Sep/0001

> I suggest the section is replaced with something like
>   It is important that specifications clearly state expectations
>   about how the technology will evolve and how changes will affect
>   the relevant namespace names, implementations and content.
>   Specifications must include such information as applicable and
>   namespace documents should link to the relevant section of the
>   Technical Report.
> The current examples aren't suitable in my opinion, the document
> should rather link to existing Technical Reports or namespace
> documents that get this right if examples are really needed. As
> such specifications would discuss this in a better context than
> the policy could, this will help Working Groups to better under-
> stand the requirements. I'd suggest some, but I'm afraid I don't
> know of any...
> I also note that it's a bad idea to refer to "URIs" here, it should
> refer to namespace names or if discussion of resource identifiers
> is really needed, it should refer to IRIs.

We'll keep track of your comments and let you know if we make any
changes as a result. Thanks Björn,

 _ Ian

Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447

Received on Wednesday, 1 February 2006 03:02:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:42:56 UTC