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

Re: uri-comp draft necessary?

From: Miles Sabin <miles@milessabin.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 15:20:46 +0000
To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <200212191520.46869.miles@milessabin.com>

noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote,
> Miles Sabin writes:
> > This is the core of my complaint here: the push for namespace
> > documents will inevitably lead to a de facto revision of the
> > Namespaces REC, and that's too big a change to introduce by the
> > back door.
>
> Well, I think the question is: do the revisions mandate a change to
> the normative processing and conformance rules for documents, or are
> they merely health warnings.  A change to mandate RFC 2396 makes the
> following document not namespace well-formed:
>
> <e xmlns:p1="http://example.com"
>    xmlns:p2="HTTP://example.com"
>    p1:attr="1"
>    p2:attr="2" />
>
> I really, really, really don't want to go there.

Me neither.

> I think it would have been a mistake in the first place, and I
> certainly don't want to do it now that it would imply loss of
> backwards compatibility.  This decision was considered to the tune of
> something like 3000 emails, and I suggest we not reopen it.

I wholeheartedly agree.

My worry is that adopting RFC 2396 equivalence rules, even as a 
non-normative "best practice", is dangerously close to reopening that 
can'o'worms.

Cheers,


Miles
Received on Thursday, 19 December 2002 10:21:20 GMT

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