W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2003

Re: namespaceDocument-8: possible interaction with Namespaces in XML 1.1

From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 11:58:27 -0700
Message-ID: <3E946D53.9000500@textuality.com>
To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Cc: "'Paul Cotton'" <pcotton@microsoft.com>, www-tag@w3.org, "'Paul Grosso'" <pgrosso@arbortext.com>, roy.fielding@day.com

Larry Masinter wrote:

> Let me turn this around: why do you think it's important to stamp
> out the practice of using "urn" URIs for namespace names?

I don't.  A namespace name is advertised as being a URI and a URN is a 
URI and thus it's legal and it would be counter-productive to try to 
stomp it out.

However I'm cheerfully prepared to argue on engineering grounds that for 
every actual case I've ever encountered of an XML namespace, an http URI 
is a better choice for a name, simply because it offers the possibility 
of, using robust and ubiquitous technology, publishing human- and 
machine-readable information about the namespace.

And I continue to think that permanence is an artifact of publisher's 
intention and community practice, rather than what comes before the 
first ":".

And I do acknowledge that there are people who seem to want namespace 
names that are guaranteed *not* to be dereferencable, and some URN 
namespace is probably a way to achieve that goal; but I've never been 
able to understand why this would ever be a sensible goal.
-- 
Cheers, Tim Bray
         (ongoing fragmented essay: http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/)
Received on Wednesday, 9 April 2003 14:58:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:17 GMT