- From: Michael Mealling <michael@bailey.dscga.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 15:24:15 -0400
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@attlabs.att.com>
- Cc: keshlam@us.ibm.com, xml-uri@w3.org
On Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 12:02:31PM -0700, Larry Masinter wrote: > > "relative" even though they don't use relative syntax. But the > > "if it hurts > > when you do that, stop doing that" argument seems valid for that case; if > > you want a reference to a specific namespace rather than a family of > > namespaces, you shouldn't use relative syntax and you shouldn't use these. > > We could have a long debate about whether we're going to just say that > these are "a bad idea" or whether they're "disallowed", but given that > the means of publication is a "W3C Recommendation" rather than a "W3C > Standard", > I think the distinction is moot: the recommendation should disallow them. > Software that uses them won't follow the recommendation, boo hoo. > > Michael Mealling wrote: > > # BUT, http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform and > # http://WWW.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform are equivalent URIs and IMHO, > # the namespace document should inherit that equivalence rule, not > # try and come up with its own... > > The namespace document should disallow XML-document creators from ever > using more than one of these, so that XML-document recievers can use > string-equality for determining namespace equality. That's a nice finesse on the problem. I can go for that.... -MM -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Mealling | Vote Libertarian! | www.rwhois.net/michael Sr. Research Engineer | www.ga.lp.org/gwinnett | ICQ#: 14198821 Network Solutions | www.lp.org | michaelm@netsol.com
Received on Monday, 5 June 2000 15:35:38 UTC