Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck)

At 05:42 PM 6/1/00 -0400, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
>Breaking the first point out into two,
>
>Re-issue namespace spec saying:-
>
>* Confirm that the namespace attribute is a URI-reference
>* Point out that that this implies that litteral comparison and URI
>comparison are
>  equivalent so long a  relative URIs are not used;
>* using relative URI references is  a bad idea, because existing software
>   does different things with them.
>
>XPath does not need to be re-issued as it will interwork, as relative
>URIs are excluded.  Software which absolutizes the URI-reference
>and uses the URI will be legal. So will software which compares as
>strings.  Yes, it is is a compromise.

This is the 'status quo' proposal, plus an effective - though unenforced -
ban on the use of relative URI references?

>>If the spec was going to be re-issued with descriptions of good
>>practice I would also be in favour of it (or an additional spec)
>>recommending some format of file to place at the namespace URI
>>in the case that you do use a dereferencable URI scheme.
>
>That would be a note.  I think that it might be a good idea to point out
>for example that
>- such a document is not mandatory
>- the document may include xml-schema
>- a document can contain xml-schema and also other information

Gack.  I'd hold off on this until you're ready for Namespaces in XML 2.0,
and have some firmer idea of what kind of document you'd actually like to
see at the end of those dererefenced URIs.

Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
Building XML Applications
Inside XML DTDs: Scientific and Technical
Cookies / Sharing Bandwidth
http://www.simonstl.com

Received on Thursday, 1 June 2000 22:35:56 UTC