- From: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
- Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 10:07:38 +0100
- To: <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
I also think the latter is better readable. As an alternative (I think) James Clark once proposed to use a wording like {http://www.w3.com/standards/z39.50/}Authors if a name with namespace needs to be mentioned. But if the namespace is clear from the context, why bother... //Stefan > -----Original Message----- > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff > Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2001 8:05 PM > To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > Subject: RE: Purpose of Namespace > > > I'd vote for the latter (i.e. just refer to the property without > the namespace), but either is OK by me. > > Cheers, > Geoff > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jason Crawford [mailto:ccjason@us.ibm.com] > Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2001 6:09 PM > To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > Subject: RE: Purpose of Namespace > > > > << > So I'd say all that needs to be done is to get rid of the sentence that > refers to concatenating the namespace URL with the local node name, > and we are done with this issue. > >> > Sounds good. > > One other thing is that in places where it refers to a property with it's > concatenated name, I'll have to change > the reference to use a [URI, local name] pair. > > For example section 8.2.2... > > In this example, the client requests the server to set the value of > the http://www.w3.com/standards/z39.50/Authors property, and to > remove the property http://www.w3.com/standards/z39.50/Copyright- > Owner. Since the Copyright-Owner property could not be removed, no > > becomes > > In this example, the client requests the server to set the value of > the [http://www.w3.com/standards/z39.50/,Authors] property, and to > remove the property [http://www.w3.com/standards/z39.50/,Copyright- > Owner]. Since the Copyright-Owner property could not be removed, no > > or perhaps > > In this example, the client requests the server to set the value of > the Authors > property, and to > remove the property Copyright- > Owner. Since the Copyright-Owner property could not be removed, no > > If you have a preference for this, let me know, otherwise I'll just figure > it out. > > J. > > ------------------------------------------ > Phone: 914-784-7569, ccjason@us.ibm.com > > >
Received on Monday, 3 December 2001 04:07:59 UTC