W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > October 2001

Re: proposed resolution to issue #30

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@idoox.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 20:01:18 +0200 (CEST)
To: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0110241955360.28235-100000@mail.idoox.com>
 Chris,
 it doesn't preclude it, as well as the wording of Namespace spec
doesn't preclude putting the schemas at the namespace URIs. Many
do it this way but generally, this is not what the namespace URIs
were designed for. Thus the Namespace spec doesn't make any
guarantees about dereferencability of the namespace URIs, and I
think we shouldn't make any such guarantees for actor URIs either
(at least in the core SOAP, extensions can do anything anyway). 8-)
 In my post [1] I didn't mean to forbid dereferencing of any of
the URIs, I was just reacting to Noah's call for specifying our
guarantees about dereferencability of the URIs.
 Best regards,
                            Jacek Kopecky

                            Idoox
                            http://www.idoox.com/



On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, Christopher Ferris wrote:

 > Jacek,
 >
 > I agree that next and none wouldn't be dereferencable,
 > but that doesn't preclude use of relative URI actor
 > values that are relative to the base URI...
 >
 > Cheers,
 >
 > Chris
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2001 14:01:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:04 GMT