W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2005

Re: id is Candidate Recommendation (Call for Implementations)

From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 21:32:48 -0500
Message-Id: <E1A72741-7EF9-11D9-9AC9-000A9580D8C0@w3.org>
Cc: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, John Boyer <JBoyer@PureEdge.com>, 'www-tag@w3.org' <www-tag@w3.org>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>

I agree that the nsuri document does need to be revisited,
and the TAG is where that should be brought up.

The spirit of nsuri used to be "the main thing is to
make sure that the expectations about change policy are
well defined and published".  My own feeling is that
a well-defined style of extension should be perfectly
acceptable, and the policy is too strict.

Tim Berners-Lee

On Feb 9, 2005, at 13:58, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:

>
> * John Boyer wrote:
>> Either way, a separate issue emerges.  Some group at the core
>> of the W3C needs to come to a decision about what a namespace
>> means and whether additions, deletions or changes to the schema
>> (the collection of names) necessitates a change of namespace URI.
>
> I would suggest to raise this issue on www-tag. There is indeed a need
> for clarification; I am regularly stunned by claims on such matters,
> e.g. in http://tinyurl.com/6744o Dean Jackson claims that "W3C also
> broke this rule when adding Ruby to the XHTML namespace ... W3C goofed
> up and regret the mistake" and you seem to be in line with Dean here;
> common practise is however to add new elements and attributes to "name-
> spaces".
>
>> For example, would it be permissible for the XForms working group
>> to issue XForms 1.1 without changing the namespace URI from the one
>> used in XForms 1.0?
>
> XForms 1.1 adds new features to XForms, W3C prohibes publication of
> technical reports that add new features to a previous Recommendation
> without changing the major version number. W3C also prohibes reusing
> old version numbers if non-editorial changes are made. Refer to the
> publication rules http://www.w3.org/2004/02/02-pubrules.html#head for
> details. Refer to http://www.w3.org/1999/10/nsuri for namespace rules.
> So it seems not all that relevant whether there is a rule against re-
> using the XForms 1.0 namespace in XForms 1.1.
>
>> It is very easy for me to illustrate the disastrous consequences of
>> such a decision.
>
> That would be most interesting, please make sure you include such a
> discussion when raising this issue on www-tag.
> -- 
> Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · 
> http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
> Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · 
> http://www.bjoernsworld.de
> 68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Tuesday, 15 February 2005 02:32:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:32 GMT