- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 08:25:16 -0600
- To: "'Tim Bray'" <tbray@textuality.com>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
I agree. However, it seems to me: 1. The task of the TAG (architecturally) is done at the point where an advisory is issued that providing a dereferenceable document meeting a specified set of qualifications (eg, human-readable) at the location indicated by the URI is an architecturally sound practice. 2. That the actual document so dereferenced is and always is, as Dan points out, a local choice made perhaps in accordance with local policy. 3. That what Tim is describing is what a WG should create and could be declared a best practice and recommended by the W3C. 4. That what Dan is describing is possible by the very nature of the namespace name as a URI, but is also as Tim describes, suboptimal even if architecturally possible and legal (that is, don't mandate unenforceable rules). So this is an argument about quality, not substance. len -----Original Message----- From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@textuality.com] Sorry, it is just idiotic to bring the entire force of an XML Schema implementation to bear to fish out some annotations. And it remains a miserable failure in the (IMHO opinion very common) case where I'm a *human* who wants to figure out what this namespace is about. Using XML Schema to carry docs and pointers in its annotations is like using the U.S.S. Enterprise to deliver a teddy bear. -Tim
Received on Wednesday, 11 December 2002 09:25:55 UTC