- From: Michael Mealling <michael@neonym.net>
- Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 17:37:15 -0400
- To: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
- Cc: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>, www-tag@w3.org
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 02:28:49PM -0700, Paul Prescod wrote: > "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote: > > It worked well enough for markup until > > namespaces were introduced. > > XML has many references to web architecture embedded in it. Most are > much more inconvenient for offline use than namespaces. Nobody seems to > mind. We SGML-ers swore that requiring system identifiers would make XML > unusable off the Web. We were wrong. > > > ... Maybe the > > problem is namespaces and then perhaps > > the only problem is insisting that to > > be a namespace it must be dereferenceable. > > There is essentially no circumstance where it is difficult to make > namespaces dereferencable and if there were such a circumstance it would > be handled by the distinction between SHOULD and MUST. There is a reason > that there is a distinction. If there were some language in there explaining why it was SHOULD and what valid reasons for not following the recommendation I would be much happier... But still, I think the language should not mention any particular URI scheme. Only particular semantics that schemes would need for a given application. -MM -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Mealling | Vote Libertarian! | urn:pin:1 michael@neonym.net | | http://www.neonym.net
Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2002 17:39:29 UTC