W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-uri@w3.org > June 2000

Re: typo/bug in the namespace spec

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@microsoft.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 16:57:37 -0700
Message-ID: <007401bfd337$aacf7d50$83b11eac@redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <xml-uri@w3.org>, "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>
> I believe that the consensus was that the rec means exactly what it
> that NS names are names that use URI syntax.

Taken in context with your two other recent mails on this list [2][3],
it seems to me that you by saying that it is not a URI are really saying
that you don't believe people will dereference the URI or not. I won't
contest whether you believe in deferencing or not or believe in the
robustness of what you might find after dereferencing but *for the sake
of namespaces* I also don't think that it actually makes any difference.

A URI *is* an identifier and as distributed identifier, it is as good as
any. I take it that you agree with this when you say that it has URI

In fact, this is very much what we have written in the proposal that
David Turner sent out the other day [1]. This proposal clarifies that
whether you want to compare the namespace identifier, whether you want
to dereference it, or whether you want to send it to a search engine are
all ways that you *might* use it but the namespace spec certainly
doesn't force you to do any of that.

I think this might be what surprises people about the proposed wording
in [1] - it deliberately doesn't say how to use the identifier.

...or are you saying something else?

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen,

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-uri/2000Jun/0406.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-uri/2000Jun/0494.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-uri/2000Jun/0495.html
Received on Saturday, 10 June 2000 19:59:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:43 UTC