W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > September 2000

RE: Schematron schema for SOAP 1.1 Envelopes

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 19:07:36 -0700
Message-ID: <001701c02370$bd555790$fb4c1fac@redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "David Orchard" <orchard@pacificspirit.com>, "Rick JELLIFFE" <ricko@geotempo.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
> Your point #1 is incorrect.  Same with #2.  A namespace
> identifier is a URI
> so that the namespace can be guaranteed unique across a
> namespace.

Stop saying that a URI means different things in different places. A URI
is a URI is a URI - full stop. Your interpretation of #1 and #2 are your
personal view of what people might want to use URIs for but it is not for
you (or me) to decide whether people want to dereference or not.

>  The
> definer of a namespace will probably pick a URI as it's
> dependent upon DNS
> which is dependent upon IP, so there is some guarantee of uniqueness.
> Indeed, the namespace 1.0 spec as written allows you to put
> any characters
> in there, URI or not.

It actually is pretty clear on that it is a URI.

> It's careless to make an assumption - namespaces are URIs for
> the purpose of
> fetching schemas - and then claim it as fact.  It has never
> been the intent
> that applications can do a GET on the namespace URI to fetch a schema.

I didn't claim that you are guaranteed a schema - I said might - just as
well as you might get HTML back when you go to some website. This is what
the NS spec states - you might or you might not. The same thing goes with
schemaLocation - you are not guaranteed a schema - that's just life. It
certainly does not state that "it has never been the intent...".

> Eventually, there will be a packaging specification that
> deals with all the
> relevant information for a document - schemas, xslt, xinclude targets,
> xlinks, xlink targets, gifs, ....  Then there can be a mechanism for
> retrieving the related documents.  But it's very much not a
> namespace issue.
> The W3C has done an excellent job of not coflating identity
> with packaging
> with location.  It has done a terrible job of defining identity.

It is sufficiently defined by the URI spec RFC 2396.

Henrik
Received on Wednesday, 20 September 2000 22:08:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:57 GMT