- From: Paul W. Abrahams <abrahams@valinet.com>
- Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 16:42:28 -0400
- To: Julian Reschke <reschke@muenster.de>
- CC: abrahams@acm.org, David Carlisle <david@dcarlisle.demon.co.uk>, xml-uri@w3.org
Julian Reschke wrote: > > Paul W. Abrahams wrote: > > > How would you define "expected" names? > > > > I wouldn't. I'd put something into Namespaces Revised, probably > > in a non-normative > > appendix, that would say how different kinds of URIs might be > > used in other > > contexts, or not used at all. For instance, a mailto URI > > wouldn't be useful for > > retrieving a schema. > > But then there is nothing in the namespace REC which would indicate that the > namespace URI is supposed to be useful to retrieve a schema. What the namespace spec now says is: "It is not a goal that [the namespace name] be directly usable for retrieval of a schema (if any exists)." That seems to say the opposite: that the namespace URI is not expected to be useful in retrieving a schema, even though (this is the implication) some people might expect it to do so. Paul Abrahams
Received on Tuesday, 6 June 2000 19:01:05 UTC