W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2002

Re: TB16 Re: Comments on arch doc draft

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 10:14:54 -0400
Message-ID: <010f01c221d2$d6b155b0$0a2e249b@nemc.org>
To: "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>

Tim Bray wrote:
> Actually, I don't think that the TAG needs to beat up on URNs to achieve
> its goal in this particular case; we should just say that namespace
> names SHOULD be URIs that may readily be dereference, and when
> dereferenced, yield human and machine readable information about the
> namespace.  When the time comes that URNs (or any other URI scheme) are
> easily dereferenced, they'll make good namespace names.   Right now,
> URNs do not make good namespace names. -Tim

I am tempted to agree wholeheartedly with this however one issue bothers me.

Perhaps we should acknowledge that there are two types of XML applications:

1) Web based
2) non-Web based

 The concept of _dereferencability_ is tightly linked to being "on the Web"
... in fact one could argue that this is the defining characteristic. One
could even say that for Web based XML applications, namespace URIs MUST be
dereferencable, yet the XML Namespace naming mechanism needs to work for all
of XML.

Perhaps the source of the controversy regarding XML Namespaces arises from
those XML applications that are not intended to be Web based? In such cases
I must admit it is a bit strange that dereferencable URIs are required, and
in such cases URNs are not an unreasonable option (understanding that I am
not personally in such applications).

Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2002 10:20:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:52 UTC