XLink Note point 2 question [was: Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2005 January 26]

All, but JohnC in particular:

> From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Paul Grosso
> Sent: Wednesday, 26 January, 2005 10:59
> To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2005 January 26
> 

> > 3.  XLink update.
> > 
> > Our WG Note "Extending XLink 1.0" is supposedly still on
> > track for publication this Thursday--the request is at
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2005JanMar/0017
> 
> TBL has approved publication but asked the following
> about our point 2:
> 
>  The point about reserving the namespace is interesting. 
>  The namespace is in w3.org space, and so is owned by W3C.
>  This fact follows from the architecture.
>  So w3c has change control of the namespace. This is normal. 
>  What was the group woried about?
>  Other standards bodies or manufacturers "squatting" on 
>  the space by inventing new things?
> 
> Our point is to ensure no one outside the W3C make 
> inappropriate use of this namespace, especially individual
> authors (but maybe also some implementators).  We believe 
> that the current XLink 1.0 wording--that "no meaning is 
> defined by XLink" for other attributes in the xml 
> namespace--may mislead people into thinking they could 
> define such uses.  We wish to ensure this misconception
> doesn't occur.


I can find no such wording in XLink.

Can someone point me to this wording or other
wording that may mislead people into thinking
they could define their own attributes in the
XLink namespace?

paul

Received on Wednesday, 26 January 2005 17:10:27 UTC