Re: Comments on URIs for W3C Namespaces

Bjoern,

I requested that Tim review your comments. I have not heard back from
him for several weeks and therefore plan to leave the current policy as
is at this time because Tim reviewed the current policy. Perhaps further
discussion in the TAG would draw Tim's attention to your concerns.

 _ Ian

On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 21:01 -0600, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 02:35 +0100, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> >   Regarding http://www.w3.org/2005/07/13-nsuri it's sad to see the
> > document has not been checked for broken links before publication,
> > there are broken fragments that should be fixed.
> 
> I found one and fixed it. Thanks for the report.
> 
> > The entire section 4 does not make sense to me, I don't understand
> > what it could mean for a namespace to "change"; this was discussed
> > to quite some extend on the www-tag mailing list, it's odd to see
> > this still in the document. I also do not understand the relation-
> > ship between namespace names and validity of content or processing
> > semantics as implied by some examples.
> 
> This text is based on discussion with TimBL and was shared with the TAG
> as well [1] (although I don't recall receiving feedback from them).
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2005Sep/0001
> 
> > I suggest the section is replaced with something like
> > 
> >   It is important that specifications clearly state expectations
> >   about how the technology will evolve and how changes will affect
> >   the relevant namespace names, implementations and content.
> >   Specifications must include such information as applicable and
> >   namespace documents should link to the relevant section of the
> >   Technical Report.
> > 
> > The current examples aren't suitable in my opinion, the document
> > should rather link to existing Technical Reports or namespace
> > documents that get this right if examples are really needed. As
> > such specifications would discuss this in a better context than
> > the policy could, this will help Working Groups to better under-
> > stand the requirements. I'd suggest some, but I'm afraid I don't
> > know of any...
> > 
> > I also note that it's a bad idea to refer to "URIs" here, it should
> > refer to namespace names or if discussion of resource identifiers
> > is really needed, it should refer to IRIs.
> 
> We'll keep track of your comments and let you know if we make any
> changes as a result. Thanks Björn,
> 
>  _ Ian
> 
-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447