W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > September 2000

Re: FYI -- draft ietf uri doc

From: Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 22:49:59 -0400
Message-ID: <39BD99D7.EA813F62@thinkingcat.com>
To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
CC: uri@w3.org
Al,

A very nicely laid out statement of XML's pickle.

Al Gilman wrote:
> end-to-end, it can and should be solved, the URI community should be
> supporting the investigation of avenues of relief.  We can't just blow this
> off.

Agreed.

> recover..."  References to schemas where the correct processing of the
> current document instance is contingent on successful processing of the
> cited schema is another whole kettle of fish. It is a normative reference,

My questions (and I have not been following the XML development
discussions, so please bear with me) are:

Can you distinguish between these normative/non-normative references
within XML (either through the tags, or specific contexts)?

Are you really trying to say "I know this reference indicates
an object that contains valid XML", or are you expressing a relationship
between the current document and the one referenced?  For example, "it 
was valid XML last time I checked".  I.e., getting back to what Dan 
Laliberte was mentioning. 

> It is an open question as to whether this problem should be solved in the
> definition of a URI 

Saying "no" to this is not a lack of willingness to understand the
problem XML is facing, nor is it an assertion that no other 
applications have encountered the same issue.  It's just that URIs
have been defined & used by a multitude of applications (and lower
layer services) that will not support changes/restrictions in
the definition of URIs.

> XML is indeed under a constraint to use "a URI, which has to be able to be
> any old URI" to refer to the schema the more restrictive terms of reference
> have to come from the URI and not the XML.  But that is not necessarily a

What's less possible:  adding syntax to an XML reference to indicate
whether it is "normative", or changing the way references MUST
(or SHOULD) be handled, to check some alternate service as to the
particulars of the referenced object?  I.e., leave the identifier
as just an identifier, but add semantics to handling it, as a
step before traditional resolution?  ("Look before you leap").  What
such a service might be is, of course, an open question.  

Leslie.

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality with a delicate splash of the imaginary... 
    ... or was that the other way around?"
   -- ThinkingCat

Leslie Daigle
leslie@thinkingcat.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 11 September 2000 22:50:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:02 UTC