W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2002

RE: what's wrong with using XML Schema/HTML/RDF to document names paces?

From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 08:25:16 -0600
Message-ID: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EEEACD4F@hq1.pcmail.ingr.com>
To: "'Tim Bray'" <tbray@textuality.com>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org

I agree.  However, it seems to me:

1.  The task of the TAG (architecturally) is done at the 
point where an advisory is issued that providing a 
dereferenceable document meeting a specified set of 
qualifications (eg, human-readable) at the location 
indicated by the URI is an architecturally sound 
practice.

2.  That the actual document so dereferenced is 
and always is, as Dan points out, a local choice 
made perhaps in accordance with local policy.

3.  That what Tim is describing is what a WG 
should create and could be declared a best 
practice and recommended by the W3C.

4.  That what Dan is describing is possible 
by the very nature of the namespace name as a 
URI, but is also as Tim describes, suboptimal 
even if architecturally possible and legal (that 
is, don't mandate unenforceable rules).

So this is an argument about quality, not 
substance.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@textuality.com]

Sorry, it is just idiotic to bring the entire force of an XML Schema 
implementation to bear to fish out some annotations.  And it remains a 
miserable failure in the (IMHO opinion very common) case where I'm a 
*human* who wants to figure out what this namespace is about.  Using XML 
Schema to carry docs and pointers in its annotations is like using the 
U.S.S. Enterprise to deliver a teddy bear.  -Tim
Received on Wednesday, 11 December 2002 09:25:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:14 GMT